1951-06-21

[Stage Direction]
Eleventh report of standing committee on miscellaneous private bills,-Mr. Croll.

Mr. W. J. Browne (Si. John's West):: On a
question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of the session I was made a member of the committee on miscellaneous private bills, but I resigned at the first meeting held in March. Though I have written the chairman of the committee twice to this effect, I am still receiving notices of the committee meetings. I should like to be on record as having resigned as of that date.



PUBLIC ACCOUNTS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. L. Philippe Picard (Bellechasse)
presented the second report of the standing committee on public accounts, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: Yesterday the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) inquired as to the dispute between the coastal shipping companies in British Columbia and the seafarers' international union. This dispute concerns certain uncertifieated personnel of Canadian National Steamships, Canadian Pacific Railway Company (B.C. coast steamship service) and Union Steamships Limited. Negotiations for the revision of the existing agreement between these companies and the union representing them have been under way for some time. Wages, hours and union security issues are involved.
The senior industrial relations officer of my department in British Columbia was assigned to this dispute when the parties themselves had been unable to reach agreement, and the department has been kept
continuously informed of all developments in the joint efforts being made to effect a settlement. All those concerned are aware of the public interest involved and every effort is being made to resolve the dispute. The union has taken a strike vote, the result of which gave union officials authority to call a strike. A strike deadline was set for midnight Friday, June 22. However, I am happy to say that notice of the definite strike deadline has been cancelled and negotiations are continuing. I am sure hon. members will agree with me that it would be inadvisable at the present time to discuss the details of the proceedings.



REPORTS AND PAPERS


Hon. F. G. Bradley (Secretary of State):: I wish to table parliamentary return, reference No. 93: During 1935 to 1951 inclusive, for what projects has the firm of C. D. Howe Company Limited been retained by the government, etc.
The necessary information from the board of grain commissioners was received only yesterday afternoon, and the return is now complete.



QUESTIONS


William Joseph Browne: What is the reason for the delay in the appointment of judges for the district courts of Newfoundland?


Mr. Garson:: This matter is still receiving
consideration by the government.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Mr. Diefenbaker:: How many copies of the folder "Good Teeth" issued by the Department of Health and Welfare, were distributed, French and English, and what was the cost of preparing, printing and distribution?


Mr. Marlin:: Seventy thousand copies in
English and 1,500 copies in French have been distributed to the provinces, on request. Twenty-six thousand copies in French, which had been distributed but in which there was later found to be a printing error, are being recalled. Repeat orders have been received from some provinces.
The printing order, against which only partial delivery has been made, was for

Questions
100,000	copies in English and 35,000 copies in French. The expected total cost is approximately $2,000.
This folder was prepared by the dental health division to meet the request of provincial health educators for dental health material designed specifically for junior elementary school children.
During preparation, draft texts and layout were sent to the Canadian Dental Association for evaluation and criticism. Additional drafts were sent to the provincial health educators with the request that evaluation reports as to accuracy and suitability be secured from provincial directors of dental divisions, from public health departments of provincial dental associations, from parent-teacher groups, public health officials, etc. In response 33 reports were obtained; there was no criticism of the technical content-in fact the folder aroused very favourable comment. There was complete agreement on the part of dental bodies consulted that the pamphlet was factual and technically correct.



HEALTH GRANTS


Mr. Carter:: What assistance, if any, has been granted under the national health grants program toward the development of health services in outlying areas of Newfoundland?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The sum of $200,000 has been made available to the province of Newfoundland for the following purposes: (a) assistance in developing the south coast health services by the employment of additional medical staff; (b) additional staff and equipment for the Bonne Bay cottage hospital; (c) to facilitate transportation within the divisional health inspection service which has been inaugurated for the west coast, the purchase of equipment such as a boat and snowmobiles, and support toward the provision of air service.



MING SUNG INDUSTRIAL COMPANY


[Stage Direction]
COMMUNISTS On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Nanaimo):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport, notice of which I sent him this morning. Which of the vessels mentioned in the return tabled by the minister yesterday are still operating between Hong Kong and Macao, and which are the two ships reported to have been seized by the communists on the Yangtze river?


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: The hon. gentleman telephoned my office a short while ago and indicated that 
he was going to ask this question, and I received notice of it about five minutes ago. I will give him such information as I have at the moment, and if there is some I cannot give him, I shall be glad to obtain it later.
The question is: Which of the vessels mentioned in the return tabled yesterday are still operating between Hong Kong and Macao? In the return which I tabled yesterday seven vessels were mentioned, and the return indicated that those vessels operating between the ports of Hong Kong and Macao had been exempted from the operation of sections 113 and 114 of the Canada Shipping Act. My understanding is that five of them are operating on that run and that two of them are not, although I should like to verify that. In the few minutes at my disposal after I received notice of the question, I was unable to verify it, but I understand that is the position.
The second part of his question was: Which are the two ships reported to have been seized by the communists? That I am unable to say, but I am informed that the ships to which my hon. friend has reference have never been registered under the Canadian flag, and neither is there any indication or evidence of Canadian registry here.


George Randolph Pearkes: May I address a supplementary question to the minister? Can he name the five ships which are now operating?


Lionel Chevrier: I think I can, but I would not attempt to do it now.


George Randolph Pearkes: The minister will give me that information later?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes. As soon as I can get the information, I will give it to the house.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I have now the information which was requested by the hon. member for Nanaimo, and with the consent of the house I should like to put it on record. The question was: Which of the vessels mentioned in the return tabled on June 20 are still operating between Hong Kong and Macao, and which are the two ships reported to have been seized by the communists on the Yangtze river?
I have been informed that two vessels, the Lung Men and the Chien Men, are operating between Hong Kong and Macao; two vessels, the Hu Men and Yu Men, are laid up at Hong Kong and have been laid up there for the past ten days. I am further informed that three vessels, the Shih Men, the Chi Men and the Yen Men, are operating between Hong Kong and Canton but not on a regular service. And I am informed that two further

vessels, the Kuei Men and the Ching Men, are, it is believed, those that were seized, and were never placed under Canadian registry.


George Randolph Pearkes: The last two were the vessels referred to by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) as operating up the Yangtze, then?


Lionel Chevrier: I could not say. I was not here when the Minister of Trade and Commerce made his statement. The question put was as to which vessels had been seized by the communists on the Yangtze river, and I am not able to say with any assurance. I am informed that the two last named are the ones, but I must point out that they were never placed under Canadian registry.


George Randolph Pearkes: On June 14, at page 4125 of Hansard, the Minister of Trade and Commerce said:
There are five ships; two others have been seized by the communists.
That is what I am asking. Apparently the five should have been seven, trading out of Hong Kong.


Mr. Drew:: I should like to ask a supplementary question, because it is desirable that there be accuracy of terms so that we may understand the situation exactly. When the minister speaks of the two ships he understands are in the Yangtze, he has quite clearly stated he has not full information. He speaks of them as having been seized by the communists. Is it not correct to say that the situation is quite the contrary, that those ships were being operated by the Ming Sung company in the communist part of China and that they are simply still being operated by the same company, with its head office at Chungking in the communist area?


Lionel Chevrier: Is the leader of the opposition making a speech, or does he want some information? I was answering a question asked by the hon. member for Nanaimo, who put it in these terms: Which are the two ships reported to have been seized by the communists in the Yangtze river? My reply was that I was not sure of the position, but I had been informed that those two ships were the last two I mentioned a moment ago, and that they were never under Canadian registry. I cannot answer the question in any clearer or more definite manner than that.


George Alexander Drew: I do not think the minister should take my remarks in the way he has, or I should be called upon to reply in like manner. He used the word "seized", and I was referring to the fact that these ships
Inquiries of the Ministry were operated with his knowledge by a company in China, with its head office at Chungking. Has the minister any evidence that this operation is not being simply continued by the parent company, of which the Ming Sung Industrial Company of Canada Limited is a subsidiary?


Lionel Chevrier: I used the word "seized" because it was in the question; that was the only reason.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Joseph Browne: In the
absence of the Minister of Fisheries and his parliamentary assistant, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. Is he aware of the fact that at Placentia and Fortune bay there is a scarcity of salt, with the result that thousands of quintals of codfish have had to be dumped? Is the government aware of that situation, and has it taken any steps to relieve it?


Right Hon. L. S. Si. Laurent (Prime Minister):: I was not aware of the situation to which the hon, member has referred. There are, of course, many things which occur in this country of which I am not immediately aware. I will bring the matter to the attention of the Department of Fisheries and see if they have any information about it.



OLD AGE ASSISTANCE ACT


Paul Joseph James Martin: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure respecting old age assistance and to provide for the payment to the provinces out of the consolidated revenue fund of amounts in respect of old age assistance paid by the provinces, to certain persons who have attained the age of 65 years and who are in need of such assistance, not exceeding, in respect of any recipient, fifty per centum of forty dollars monthly or of the amount of old age assistance paid by the provinces monthly to the recipients, whichever is the lesser; and to provide for the making of agreements with the provinces in relation thereto and for the conditions and duration of such agreements.


Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinton):: Is it the
intention of the minister to make a statement on this resolution?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I had not intended to do so. I had understood that there was a sort of understanding that the statement I would make would be on the bill which I propose to distribute at the earliest opportunity.

Old Age Assistance Act Although I have just returned to the city, I understand that the arrangement is that the second reading of the bill is to be given on Saturday and I would naturally make a statement at that time. I would hope that the discussion might take place then. I am of course in the hands of the house, but I think that such an arrangement would meet with the convenience of most hon. members.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I suggest to the minister that it will save time in the long run if we have his statement this morning. It would be a guide to the house as to what to expect in the terms of the bill. May I ask the minister if he will make his statement now?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate my hon. friend's view, as I know that he has given this matter some thought. I believe, however, that the statement would be better gitTen when the bill is before the house and when the details are before it. I think that is the best way in which to develop the discussion of this extremely important problem which engages the attention of the house and of the country at this time.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the minister has indicated his decision in this matter. I think the alternative which I have suggested, that of having his statement now, would have contributed to a better understanding of the bTli and to more orderly treatment by the house of the resolution before us this morning. After all, the purpose of introducing sutfti a resolution is, as I understand it, to permit discussion of the subject, and, if it is not too late, to permit suggestions to be made from the floor of the house as to what the bill might well include.
May I say at once, and with emphasis, Mr. Speaker, that I am sure there will be the readiest co-operation in all parts of the house -certainly there will be on the part of the official opposition-in furthering this measure and in bringing about, at the earliest possible opportunity, assistance of the kind outlined in the resolution. As to a number of aspects of the matter I think it would have assisted in furthering the bill and in expediting its passage had we been given more detailed information at this resolution stage.
The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has indicated that next January 1 is the earliest date at which such a scheme could possibly be brought into effect, even with the most rapid action on the part of parliament. Certainly, so far as the official opposition is concerned, there will be genuine and ready co-operation in bringing this type of assistance into effect at that earliest possible moment.
There is difficulty, of course, in seeing the problem as a whole when we have not before us the details either of this measure or of
IMr. Martin.]

the accompanying measure to provide the universal pension at age 70. Certainly this is a problem that does not admit of being divided up in that manner into watertight compartments. I wish the government had proceeded by laying before the house at one time its entire proposed legislation with respect to the whole problem. The special committee of both houses of parliament on old age security which sat last year saw this matter as one entire problem; and one regrets to see the treatment being accorded to the problem now and parliament's approach to it chopped up as it has been, with the resolution on this one aspect of the problem being put before us now, and the other one, providing for universal pensions at age 70, being held back until October.
There were three pressing questions before that committee in regard to priorities; and that problem as to priorities thrust itself upon the committee time after time, with witness after witness, and day after day. Three principal needs were made clear by all those who contributed their ideas or the results of their studies for the assistance of the committee. The first was in reference to the means test; the second was the question of lowering the age, and the third was the adequacy of the amount of the pension. At various times the committee had to ask different witnesses who came before it-some representing organizations, and others persons who, by reason of their special study and experience, qualified as experts in this field

how they arranged these three urgent problems in order of priority. There was not absolute unanimity in the reaction of these witnesses to that question, but there was almost entire agreement. When the committee came to address itself to establishing the priority among these pressing aspects of the problem, the committee was able to do it, I think, unanimously. The committee said in effect that the most urgent problem is to eliminate the means test; the second is to find a means of lowering the age and bringing assistance to those in the age group 65 to 69, and the third problem is to find a way of providing an adequate amount. With each of these three problems was associated the problem of financing.
When the committee came to report its findings, having indicated its view as to the relative urgency of these three major problems or aspects of the problem, the committee refrained from indicating any hard and fast method of raising the money required. I think it is fair to say there was a strong difference of opinion in the committee as to what was the proper role of the committee in reference to financing the scheme. The committee eventually wrote a report in this

respect, in which it said, in effect: We cannot lay down, any particular method to be recommended as to raising the money. When he spoke on this subject in the house on June 4, the Prime Minister indicated something in this respect that has a definite bearing both upon this resolution and also upon the consideration the house will give to the other problem of financing the universal pension at age 70, which will come before the house in the fall. At page 3665 of Hansard the Prime Minister said:
Moreover, as hon. members know, the universal pensions are to have right from the start a contributory basis. Now, we have not yet completed consideration of the normal budgetary program of the current year, and the government believes it would be an advantage to have a few months to observe the effect of the recent changes in the tax structure before reaching a final decision on all the precise details of the contributory system to be recommended to parliament.
It will be recalled that the joint committee made no precise recommendations on that point, because it was recognized that it was the inescapable responsibility of the government. We want to be as sure as we can that we are making the right proposals for a plan which is going to affect, far into the future, the provision for old age security of the whole Canadian population.
I take it that the Prime Minister's observations there apply to the universal pensions at 70 and over. He does not indicate what is to be the basis of financing the program of old age assistance at ages 65 to 69, and that was one of the matters that I had hoped the Minister of National Health and Welfare would make clear to the house this morning in the statement that he has chosen not to make at this stage.
There are other questions which naturally present themselves to hon. members in relation to this aspect of the problem that is presented by the resolution this morning, namely, the assistance that is to be provided to persons aged 65 to 69. At once, sir, we ask what is the basis upon which persons are to qualify. The resolution is not too clear on this point. It speaks of providing old age assistance to certain persons who are "in need of such assistance". That is a very vague expression. I expect many people in all age categories would disclaim an absence of need of such assistance; but we are given no basis of conjecture, no inkling whatever in this resolution as to what is to determine the basis of the need.
One turns then to the Prime Minister's statement in the house on June 4, and one reads at page 3663 the following:
In conformity with that statement of the government's position, I wish to state at this time that it is proposed to introduce legislation at an early day to enable the government to make agreements with the provinces to provide old age security to persons in need between the ages of 65 and 70, and to
Old Age Assistance Act provide authority for the registration of persons over the age of 70 for the universal old age pensions. That legislation would probably also at the same time provide for the continuance of federal assistance in the payment of pensions to the blind.
The minister has given no indication whatsoever as to whether the test of need is to be the present means test, which the committee felt itself obliged to condemn, and which it recommended be discarded as to the ages of 70 and over. There was a difference of opinion on this point in the discussions in the committee. Broadly speaking, a number of us on the committee, having seen the means test condemned as to ages 70 and over, felt that it would be most inconsistent to recommend a retention of the means test for ages 65 to 69, and that was said repeatedly.


An hon. Member:: The report does not
say that.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The committee report does
not say that. I am speaking of the discussions in the committee, and there was a good deal of discussion on the point. Nevertheless, when the committee came to write the report the problem confronting it was twofold. First of all, as to the method of financing, was this to be a contributory system in the orthodox sense, or was the committee to subordinate the contributory principle in favour of universality? In the second place, how were we equipped as a nation to meet the cost of a scheme of old age pensions which would place those 65 to 69 on the same basis as those 70 years of age and over, with a view to complete abolition of the means test?
The committee on the whole felt that it was prepared to go as far as the report indicates, and not to go farther at this stage; and some of us in the committee, who had expressed our views as strongly as we could on this point, supported, and I may say were quite happy to support, the report of the committee in principle and on balance. Because this report, while it does not represent a hundred per cent of the views of all members of the committee or of all political parties represented on the committee, does represent a very high common factor of agreement; and when the committee as a whole was prepared to go this far, all members of the committee, representative of all political parties, were glad to give the report unanimous endorsation as far as it went.
I did not hear that any member of the committee, even those who felt the committee went as far as it should go in the circumstances, was prepared to say that this was the last word on this subject or the last step that should be taken in the field of old

Old Age Assistance Act age security at any time. We were dealing with the situation in the year 1950. The committee did, so far as the report goes, achieve unanimity in backing the recommendations that the report contains. I think that members of the committee are free individually to ask for better terms, if there is any practical hope of achieving them under present circumstances; but may I make it quite clear, Mr. Speaker, that the members of the official opposition did give unanimous support to this report as far as it went. We would have liked to see it do things other than it did in many respects, but we did give it unanimous support as far as it went. That was our position at the time; that is the position I am putting before the house today.
Now, sir, so far as the means test is concerned, if that is the method of determining need contemplated in this resolution, all I can say at the moment, lacking any information on the point from the minister, is that the means test which the committee discarded in the light of experience as to the age group of 70 and over, is not likely to prove more satisfactory as to the age group 65 to 69. We will continue to have, with respect to the lower age category, the same objections as have been levelled at the means test as applied to the age group 70 and over. It penalizes thrift, and creates unwarrantable intrusions into the affairs of private citizens.
If that type of test is to be enforced by the government in the legislation to be introduced,
I want to make an observation with regard to the income that persons of this group are entitled to receive. I think we recognize in the first place that the present allowable income to persons receiving the old age pension at the present time is entirely inadequate.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If the hon. member will permit me to interrupt, I think he will find, when the bill is introduced and the details are before him, that these points are adequately covered, along the lines of the committee's recommendations. I am sure that when the hon. member sees the bill he will realize that the discussion he is launching at present could be more effectively pursued with the bill before him. These points are all dealt with in the bill and for the sake of orderly discussion I should point out to him respectfully that that would be the more satisfactory course to pursue.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The minister confirms the very reason I put forward earlier as to why his statement should have been made this morning. These are points of great importance, points in which hon. members are bound to be interested, in respect of the [Mr. Fleming.1
legislation outlined in the bill. I am not going to attempt to anticipate everything in the bill-far from it. But I am indicating to the minister that that is one of the things we are looking for.
I hope nothing is going to be done to discourage people in the age category 65 to 69 from working, if they are able to do so, because of the need of expanding our labour force, and because of the evidence given to the committee as to the beneficial therapeutic effects upon persons in that age category who continue to feel that they are useful members in society and that their contribution to the labour force of this country is necessary.
I hope we are to have a statement from the minister very soon as to what is to happen to such benefits as the medical services available hitherto for persons receiving the old age pension. Is the intended application of the principle of universality in the category of 70 and over going to affect the medical services and the availability of medicines to persons who receive old age pension today, and who qualify for it under the means test? In the second place, is anything to be done in this respect for persons qualifying under the means test in the category of 65 to 69?
We shall also look to the bill with interest to see what it provides as to terms, conditions and duration of agreements which will be authorized with the provinces. May I pause here to comment that I think the ready co-operation of the provinces in connection with the type of assistance provided here has been altogether commendable. Those of us from Ontario take great pride in the leadership given by the government of our province in encouraging the extension of security to our aged citizens.
There are many questions in this field that will not be settled conclusively by the legislation indicated either in the present resolution or the one following which deals with assistance to the blind, or in the bill to be introduced in the fall for universal pensions to persons 70 years of age and over. There is still a great field of insecurity of which the committee was conscious in its review of the problem of old age security last year. Repeatedly the committee brushed up against the rather narrow confines of the field of inquiry assigned to it. That field of inquiry was strictly confined to old age security, and we had to ask ourselves many times how far the committee should go in that respect, when it was not permitted to inquire into, but nevertheless could never dismiss from its mind, the problem of persons for whom no provision is made at all under our present system of state-assisted security.

We had the question of persons who, by reason of chronic illness or permanent disability, at any age, are unable to provide for themselves. We do make provision for those who suffer from the special disability of blindness. But there are others in our society who suffer from disabilities which are equally damaging in preventing them from providing for themselves, and for whom no provision is made today.
I say this by way of reminding the house that while these measures on the order paper, and the one to be introduced in the fall to provide for universal pensions for those 70 years of age and over, are altogether commendable and will, 1 am sure, receive the sympathetic and unanimous support of the house, we must nevertheless not close our eyes to a field that is still there calling for attention. We must not assume that we have completed our task.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say at the outset that there is some merit in the suggestion of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) that at least the main debate in connection with this matter should take place when we have the bill before us. On the other hand I feel I must say that I regard the position taken by the minister as plausible, at best. After all, if it can be said today that we should not debate the resolution preceding a money bill, that is an argument that can be taken with respect to any resolution preceding any money bill.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Am I not right in understanding that, when I had the opportunity to discuss this matter with the hon. member a few days ago and told him of my intention, he concurred in the procedure which I have just now suggested as the more orderly one? I just mention this because it was as a result of that discussion that I decided this was the best way to proceed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: So far as any private discussion the minister had with me is concerned, I believe the understanding was as I have just now stated it, that the debate at this stage could be brief and that the main debate could take place on the bill. But for the minister to stand in his place now and say that there should be no debate at this time is to ask the house to forgo one of the rights and duties set out for us not only in our standing orders but also in the British North America Act. If the committee dealing with the rules of the house recommends that one of these stages of debate be dispensed with, that is another matter. As a matter of fact the last committee on procedure did recommend that this one stage be determined by a 80709-281J
Old Age Assistance Act vote, but without debate, but that recommendation was not adopted. As it stands it is still the case that parliament has the right and duty to inquire into the terms of resolutions preceding money bills.
The other point that I feel should be made at this time is that this is our only opportunity before a bill is actually placed before us to express our views as to some things that should be in the bill, or indeed to express our views as to some things that should not be in it. We all know from experience that once a government bill reaches the floor of the house the chances of getting any changes made in such a bill are indeed slim. We still cherish the hope that by making suggestions before the government has committed itseif in the form of a printed bill some of our suggestions may be taken into consideration.
As I see it, this is an historic occasion. We are so used to historic events in these buildings that sometimes we are not aware of great moments. With all its shortcomings, the legislation forecast in this resolution, long overdue though it may be, is of historic significance. When this legislation is finally passed by this parliament, and the complementary legislation passed by the various provinces, the payment of old age pensions to some Canadians at the age of 65 will be taking place in January for the first time in our history.
We in this group are particularly glad to be partaking in this forward step. As the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) has indicated, and very properly I think, the members of last year's committee had different views as to what should be in our report. Some of us thought that the recommendations in that report should go further than they did, but we recognized also that the chances of our recommendations being acted upon were much better if we could agree unanimously on certain recommendations to go at least so far. It was in that spirit that members of all four parties, and members of both houses, reached agreement on the report that was tabled on June 28 of last year.
When the matter was the subject of brief discussion in parliament last June I made it clear, and I have made it clear since both in and outside the house, that I will do nothing to jeopardize the possibility of the recommendations of that committee being implemented. Along with that statement I have made it clear that there are some things with which I am not satisfied and that I for one will continue fighting for improvements in our old age security legislation. Members of the committee know that I took that position, as indeed did others. Members of that
4418	HOUSE OF
Old Age Assistance Act committee know the points concerning which I feel changes will have to be made after this legislation has come into effect.
Right now, however, our job in this parliament is to get this legislation on the statute books and to lay the basis for the wider program of old age security recommended last June. I feel that one of our immediate tasks in this House of Commons is to make sure that the legislation to be brought in by the government measures up to the recommendations of last year's committee. The Minister of National Health and Welfare suggested to the hon. member for Eglinton that if he would wait until the bill comes in he would find the various points that he was discussing dealt with in the bill. However, the minister has not seen fit to give us the kind of detailed information that would enable us who were members of the committee to determine whether or not the bill does measure up to the recommendations made by the committee.
For example, we recommended quite clearly that the means test which is to be applied to pensions to be paid to those from 65 to 69 years of age should be less stringent than the means test in effect for those 70 years of age and over. I regard it as extremely important that the bill to be brought in should implement that recommendation. On that point I should like to quote from the report of the committee. Paragraph 48 on page 107, under the heading, "Committee's opinion", reads:
These considerations have led the committee to the view that any program of old age security to be applied to persons in the age group 65 to 69 should involve some principle of selectivity, and this, in the committee's judgment, involves the application of a suitable test of eligibility, designed to ensure assistance to persons in this age group most in need of it.
Then over on the next page we find paragraph 51(b) which reads:
For the age group 65 and over not eligible for the universal benefit, old age assistance at the rate of $40 a month should be available, subject to an eligibility test-
Notice how we steered clear of the words "means test".
-in some respects similar to that which exists under the present old age assistance program, but modified to take account of the different characteristics of the age group to which this test is to apply,-
Then follow these most significant words: -and adjusted in such a way as to recognize to a greater extent than at present the desirability of encouraging recipients to earn supplemental income.
In other words, our recommendation that the means test to be applied to those 65 to 69 years of age should be less severe than the means test now in effect was not just in blank form; we spelled it out. We suggested


be no delay in going ahead with this matter. I am delighted that at last we are getting rid of the means test at age 70; I am pleased that we are getting a pension started at 65. But let it be clearly understood that this parliament should be satisfied even now with nothing less in this bill than the committee recommended in its report last June. Furthermore, once this legislation is in effect this parliament must face the fact that there are still other improvements which must be made before we can say that we really have an adequate program of old age security, or indeed an adequate program of over-all social security.


Mr. F. D. Shaw (Red Deer):: My colleagues and I welcome the action of the government in bringing this resolution before the house for consideration at this time. We had expected and hoped, however, that the minister would make a rather comprehensive statement. As indicated by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming), it is virtually impossible for us to proceed now without basing our observations upon certain assumptions. I wholly agree with those who have spoken previously that now is the time for all members of the house to have an opportunity to consider the provisions which should be included in the bill that will be placed before us.
I have heard certain very disturbing rumours, on the basis of which I could probably develop a forty-minute speech. I will go so far as to suggest that at the moment I almost fear that some of those rumours are going to prove to be realities. On innumerable occasions we have made reference to the means test. Many times in the committee last year we stressed the complete viciousness of that test as it has been applied down through the years. However, as a basis of compromise, realizing of course that we are entering a new field in which we must acquire experience, we did agree to the imposition of a means test upon the sixty-five to sixty-nine group. We believed, and in fact were firmly convinced, that it would be a modified means test. Now I suspect that when the bill comes before us we shall find that the means test which is to be applied will be in most respects similar to that which has been applied to our pioneer citizens over 70 years of age.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The bill will indicate that my hon. friend is quite wrong.


Frederick Davis Shaw: I am very glad to hear that. As indicated by a previous speaker, we should have been told that at this stage. If the minister had indicated that the means test

would be modified in keeping with the feeling of the committee, of course I would not have had to make any reference to it.
I noticed that the minister as well as the two previous speakers referred to recommendations of the committee. I find no recommendations in the report. I find summaries of submissions that were made, summaries of our own investigations, and a summary of the constitutional position. The report ends with two sections, one dealing with findings and the other with committee opinions. There are actually no recommendations cited as such. It is, however, a fact, that all members of the committee assumed that the committee's opinion in fact embraced the recommendations of that committee. I am not going to make further reference to the means test, but I should like to advise the minister that if, when the bill is placedi before us, the changes in the means test do not seem to be in keeping with the recommendations of the committee, we shall certainly have plenty to say in that respect.
May I refer to this $40 payment. As indicated by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, we were dealing with the $40 a month as of one year ago when the cost of living index was 165-4. Today, with this resolution before us, the cost of living index is 182. So far as I am concerned, that fact places an entirely different complexion upon the $40 a month which was a suggested amount incorporated in our report of last year.
I have already pointed out in this house that, on the basis of today's cost of living index and in relation to the base period 1935-39, $40 is worth only $21.97 today. The $480 payable to a single pensioner now has a purchasing power of $263.73, which is a wholly inadequate amount so far as I am concerned. I must advise the government now that when the bill is before the house we shall have to take strong exception to the payment of $40 a month. In fact we are convinced that as long as the government fails to take appropriate action to stabilize the value of the Canadian dollar, there is only one fair method by which pensioners can be treated, and that is by incorporating an escalator clause in the schedule of payments. We feel that that is the only just approach to this matter. Even if the government and the house were to agree that we should, as suggested by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, change the $40 to $60, with the way things are going now, in a matter of six months or a year that $60 would be wholly inadequate to meet the basic requirements of those aged people. We therefore think that the only proper method
Old Age Assistance Act by which to deal with the matter is, as I say, to include the escalator clause in the schedule dealing with the amount paid; in other words, to tie it to the cost of living.
We fully appreciate the fact that in dealing with this 65-69 group-which is certainly a step in the right direction-we cannot be unmindful of the requirements of other persons within the nation. It is true that when we take in that 65-69 group we shall be taking care of a great many incapacitated persons within our country. But let us never forget that we still have in Canada thousands of persons under 65 years of age who are wholly unable to provide for themselves owing to physical incapacitation. Certainly the solution of that problem should be one of our prime objectives. While we of course realize that this matter is not tied in closely with the resolution which is before us, we think that in considering it we should not be unmindful of that problem which will have to be dealt with soon.
I do not intend to take up more of the time of the house on this occasion. Hon. members have the report of the committee on old age security. They are in a position to familiarize themselves thoroughly with all that is contained therein. It seems unnecessary for me to read extracts from the report in order to remind hon. members of what the committee's opinion was. It seems unnecessary to remind hon. members what the various interested organizations across the country said with respect to this whole matter. I am therefore not going to indulge in the reading of extracts from the report. I am not going to repeat what I shall probably have to repeat on Saturday when the bill comes before the house.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would urge the minister to give re-consideration to this $40 payment, which today is wholly inadequate. We sincerely trust that, as he has indicated, the changes in the means test- which we of course prefer to call something else-will be in keeping with the recommendations of the committee.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, as the hon.
member who spoke first stated, this is really an historic occasion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It was I who said that.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It was the hon. member who spoke second who said that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In February, 1927, there was introduced into this house the first Old Age Pensions Act. It was an act which at that time was thought by many to go too far in the direction intended. The important measure that is now before the house is one that has

Old Age Assistance Act been criticized in certain quarters as going too far in one direction and not far enough in another. It may be that the most commendable feature of the legislation is that it takes a position midway between those two extremes. One is somewhat comforted, I think, in the knowledge that since an extreme position is never a sound one, the government has been sound in accepting the general recommendations of the parliamentary committee and in not giving in to the extreme position.
We are dealing with a matter that is of great concern both from- a social and from a financial point of view. This measure is part of a program that is going to involve an expenditure in this country of over $400 million in ensuing years, and certainly close to $400 million in the year after the measure is adopted. Those are considerations which must be borne in mind at this time. We are not launching a measure of modest proportions. We are initiating a program of the greatest magnitude, and one which, within the very confines of the committee's report, may be looked upon as perhaps the most comprehensive effort of its kind ever made by any country in the world. It does not come to us as a measure foreign to our interests. The government was responsible for the original act of 1927. It was the same administration and the same political view that prompted various amendments to the Old Age Pensions Act from time to time. Since I have been Minister of National Health and Welfare I have expressed the point of view of the government legislatively on a number of occasions when we increased the basic amount of the pension and when we increased the permissible income thereby providing for some liberalization of the means test. Then we made additional amendments that provided for a reduction in the qualifying age for blind persons from 40 to 21 years of age; so that those of us on the right of Mr. Speaker approach this problem not as ones who have been prodded into it, but as ones who have consistently taken the initiative in this matter. That is to be expected of a party that is responsible for family allowances, for unemployment insurance, for the veterans charter, and for the national health program.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Where is it?


Paul Joseph James Martin: But I do not want to depreciate in any way the contribution that has been made by all members of the house to this important matter.
The history of this particular measure, the house will recall, goes back to a motion made by myself on March 10, 1950, on behalf of


the government, urging that there should be set up a parliamentary committee to consider and study this matter of old age security. We had a long debate on that subject in the house, and finally the committee was set up. As I said, speaking in this house toward the end of June last year, I doubt whether any committee in the history of this House of Commons has ever more diligently, industriously and purposefully pursued its assignment than that committee. The result was that in a spirit of collaboration with regard to this important problem it came forward with a unanimous view as to what should be done.
And as I congratulated the committee, its chairman and its members last session, I do so again.
Since that time the government has given consideration to the committee's report-and I may say not only the government, but other countries have given consideration to that report. The congress of the United States has allocated some funds for the purpose of giving study to the type of program that is developing here, realizing their own measure's shortcomings and deficiencies, and for the purpose of ascertaining whether the sort of program we are initiating today might not be advantageously employed in that country. That is a tribute to the work of the parliamentary committee representing all political parties in this house.
After the committee made its report I stated outside of this house that it was the government's intention to go ahead with the committee's report, and to implement it. Shortly thereafter the Korean situation developed, and the government was faced with the obligation of providing in very great amounts for -the defences of this country. The question arose in everyone's mind whether or not, in the face of these unforeseen financial obligations at that time, the administration would carry on with its old age security program. I want to say this, and I say this for Canada:	I think it is a great credit to
the capacity and to the courage of this nation that when faced with a commitment of almost $2 billion for national defence, the Prime Minister of this country (Mr. St. Laurent) should have been able to say to the ten provincial governments sitting in this very room last December that notwithstanding those formidable obligations the government intended to go ahead with this important program of social security.
I personally believe that you cannot triumph over communism by force alone; that in the long run the victory over that ideology will be won by the determination of the free nations of the world to use their own capacities, economic and otherwise, to pro-

vide within responsible limits for the social welfare of the masses of the people. That is what we are doing in this program, the cost of which, I must repeat, will be greater than the total cost this year of family allowances.
Reference was made by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) to the non-separability of the features involved in this program. A few days ago in the house the Prime Minister said what our program was. We propose to proceed with that portion of the committee's recommendations, adopted by the government and now put forward, having to do with the age group between 65 and 69. In addition we propose to bring in a measure affecting blind persons. In the fall we will proceed with that portion of the program relating to persons 70 and over which will be the exclusive responsibility of the federal government, providing at the same time for the measures by which the principle of contribution is to be recognized.
We also propose to bring in shortly a supplementary estimate to provide for the registration of those persons 70 and over who will qualify for the universal pension. We are doing that so that there will be no delay in bringing into operation at the earliest possible date, January 1, 1952, this important measure. That will affect some 410,000 additional individuals in the 70 and over age group. At the present time there are approximately 305,000 individuals in receipt of old age pensions under the present legislation. That number will be increased in 1952 to
715.000	persons. That is a social consequence of the greatest significance, one that is going to give a greater measure of security to many classes of people who otherwise would never have been covered, and who were never intended to be reached by the original Old Age Pensions Act.
The security that it will provide for teachers, for railroad and other workers, for those groups in the nation whose incomes are such as to require supplementation, will give the act a scope which I am sure the original proposers of the Old Age Pensions Act did not contemplate. The measure that we are dealing with, providing for assistance in the 65 to 69 age group, will bring the total number benefited to 860,000 persons in the first year of the complete plan's operation. It is estimated there are approximately
450.000	persons who come within the 65 to 69 age group. It is calculated that of that number roughly 145,000 will qualify for pension in the legislation covered by the resolution now before the house.
This measure, sir, is one that was arrived at not without much co-operation, particularly between the two senior levels of
Old Age Assistance Act government in Canada. We recently had a conference in this building with the ten provincial governments, in which I outlined in principle the legislation covered by the resolution now under discussion. I did not give them the actual details of the bill: that is something which, in accordance with our constitutional practice, must first of all be given to the House of Commons. But I did outline the government's intention with respect to the 65 ,to 69 age group. And I want at this time to pay tribute to the spirit of harmony and the spirit of co-operation which prevails between the two senior levels of government in this particular matter, as I find it in respect of other matters having to do with the department I have the responsibility of administering.
Hon. members who have already spoken may say that they would prefer to see this or that. I would remind the house that when we come to consideration of the legislation we shall have to recall that this is legislation based upon financial contributions made in equal terms both by the provinces and by the federal government. This is a scheme that is going to be paid for, fifty per cent by the federal government and fifty per cent by the provinces. If the pension amount were to be increased, or if the eligibility test were to be varied, the changes would increase the financial responsibility of the provinces, just as it would ours.
I may say that every principle that will be found in the bill, the details of which will be given when introduced, was discussed with the provinces, and represents, as closely as it is possible to do so, an agreement and understanding between those ten governments and the federal government.
I do not want to anticipate the details, but because of some things that have been said, and because I think it is desirable that they should be dealt with, I say in general terms that in this legislation we are following almost to the letter the recommendations made by the parliamentary committee. In fact in some particulars it will be found that the government has decided to be a little more generous than the committee, on which all parties in the house were represented. It will be found, for example, that while the committee recommended the continuation of the principle of an eligibility test in the 65 to 69 age group, there will be provided in the bill a degree of liberalization somewhat broader than the recommendations made by the parliamentary committee. Likewise there will be something that perhaps the committee did not fully deal with, having to do with recoveries from estates. It will be seen that we have reached on this
4424	HOUSE OF
Old Age Assistance Act point agreement with the provinces, which will be incorporated in the legislation, and which undoubtedly will be regarded as a progressive step. The treatment that will be accorded Indians will also, I am sure, win the favour of the house, and, I think, of most people in the country.
These are matters to which I have referred in general terms because they have been referred to in the debate thus far; and if I did not answer, undoubtedly a wrong impression would go out to the country. I do not think anyone in the house would really want that to happen.
Then of course the proposed legislation will deal with something that has been sought for some time by a section of our population, having to do with blind persons. Requests have been made from time to time by the Canadian National Institute for the Blind and by other organizations looking after the interests of blind people in this country; and it will be found that in the appropriate legislation, which is not covered by this resolution but which forms part of the whole scheme, we shall have taken account of almost all the recommendations made by serious-minded persons interested in doing something to improve the lot of the blind.
I give these advance indications at this time so that they may stand side by side with observations made this morning, with a view to placing them in their proper perspective.
This measure is one of the greatest significance. It is one that is going to impose on all of us an obligation to realize all of its implications. I have faith in the capacity of this nation to bring this kind of measure forward at this time. I know there are many serious-minded people in the country, people whose judgment we must respect, who, in the light of our great obligations in other fields, have some concern as to the action that is now being taken.
This is no effort to create a welfare state. This is no effort to impose greater powers on the state. We still maintain our freedoms. In the light of the growing productivity of this nation, in the light of its growing national income and national productivity, we feel it is possible to bring forward improved measures of social security, as in this particular instance we are doing for our aged citizens.
I am sure the house is seized with the importance of this occasion and of this measure, when we realize that we are going to provide assistance for close to 900,000 out of the 14 million of our population, and 

give them increased security. I am sure the house and the country will look upon this measure as one having the greatest significance at this time. It is a measure which is in keeping with the responsible policies of the government, in this instance supported by a parliamentary committee, and kept within the bounds of what we feel as a nation we can financially do to live up to our obligations as a country that wants to provide a proper balance between freedom on the one hand and security on the other.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Apparently a number of members are questioning whether the debate can continue. Under standing order 43 the minister does not, on a resolution preceding a bill, close the debate, nor has he a right of reply. This is not a substantive motion. The leader of the opposition and other members who have not spoken have a right to speak at this time.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) has said, this is a most significant step. The motion now before us is the customary motion which declares that it is the opinion of the house that it is expedient to introduce the appropriate legislation to implement the recommendations of a committee which was fully representative of all parties in this house. There can be no disagreement among hon. members on the question whether it is expedient that this legislation be introduced. In fact, the members of this house have been urging that this legislation should be proceeded with as soon as possible. I welcome it; and members of this house will recall that only a short time ago I expressed the hope that the government would reconsider their apparent intention to defer consideration of these bills until the fall. I welcome the fact that they have changed their minds and that we are to have an opportunity to deal with them now.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We always intended going
ahead with these two measures.


George Alexander Drew: At any rate I welcome the fact that we are proceeding with this legislation at this time. I indicated the great importance of having before the members of this house and before the ten provincial legislatures the actual wording of the legislation which they will be called upon to consider. The step which is being taken already indicates the advantage of this course, because dates have been set for the meeting of some of the provincial legislatures early in the fall to deal with this subject.

As the minister has pointed out, it will be possible to deal more satisfactorily with the provisions of the bill when the printed bill is before us. I have no thought of attempting to interpret the remarks of the minister as to the details of the measure. We know the general intention of the legislation, and with that knowledge it is possible for us to express our approval of the step which is being taken in so far as there has been general agreement in regard to old age pensions.
The minister has stated that the legislation to be introduced substantially interprets the recommendations of the committee, which once again demonstrates the value of committees of this nature. Over and over again we have been given evidence of the unanimity which can be attained when members on both sides of the house meet to discuss subjects about which they are in agreement in principle.
In this particular case the one point that has come up for discussion this morning which perhaps raises any question at all is in regard to the provisions that are proposed to be made for those between the ages of 65 and 70 years. The discussion of that can also be much better carried forward in detail when the legislation is before us and when the actual procedure to be followed can be carefully analysed. However, I do submit that as we take this important step we should bear in mind the reasons for the contention which has been made that at the appropriate time, and when a similar measure of unanimity can be achieved, old age pensions should be extended to those of 65 years and over without a means test.
The minister has pointed out that there are those who talk about the welfare state and who see in legislation of this kind a tendency to place too great a dependence upon the treasury. After all, this principle has been recognized for a long time, without regard to party and without regard to whether it was carried on at the national or the provincial level. For many years the principle of old age pensions has been accepted, and for many years there have been expressions regarding the obvious objections to the means test, and it has been contended that it should be removed.
The question every hon. member will be called upon to ask himself as he considers such legislation is whether any argument that was ever made against the means test at the age of 70 years does not apply with equal force to the application of the means test at the age of 65 years. I should like to point out that on different occasions I have referred to this matter, and for that reason
Old Age Assistance Act I have strongly emphasized my own belief that the means test should be abolished wherever it is agreed that old age pensions should be paid.
I would recall to hon. members that at the time I had the privilege of placing the position of the government of Ontario before the dominion-provincial conference in 1945, I used these words-and I quote from the submission that I presented to that conference:
The province of Ontario agrees that old age pensions should be extended to all citizens over 70 years of age without a means test, but disagrees with joint dominion-provincial contributions to pensioners under the age of 70 with a means test.
It is recommended that old age pensions should be paid to all citizens over 65 without a means test. It is recognized, however, that heavy expenditures are involved in this proposal, and it is therefore suggested that the extension to cover all persons over the age of 65 should be made as soon as the dominion finds that it has the necessary financial resources.


Paul Joseph James Martin: As my hon. friend knows better than I, because of his actual experience, the attitude of the provinces would have to be taken into account, because they would have to share in this.


George Alexander Drew: I was simply reading into the record the statement I had made, on behalf of the province of Ontario, to the conference in 1945. Having read that into the record, I wish to point out that I stated clearly six years ago my own belief that there should be a general application of the principle that at whatever age it is agreed old age pensions should be paid, they should be paid without a means test.
In response to the remarks made by the minister that this must be done in agreement with the provinces, I certainly recognize that, and I recognize also that neither the legislation nor the administration can be satisfactorily carried out at any time unless there is agreement with the provinces. There are very good reasons why there must be general agreement, because it would be most unfortunate if we created different levels of social security throughout Canada, with the obvious disadvantages that that would create. I think it is appropriate that, when we all express our opinion that it is expedient to proceed as rapidly as possible to take final steps at this stage, we should clearly analyse why it is that the means test is objectionable. Many people still seem to think that the withdrawal of the means test is a concession which places in the hands of people of substantial means payments that they do not require. Undoubtedly there will be those who do not require these payments, and who probably will not welcome the receipt of them. I am quite sure there are many people whose
4426	HOUSE OF
Old Age Assistance Act convictions are so strong on this subject that they will not accept the payments. We must remember, however, that the number who can be included in that group is a relatively small part of the population.
I for one would be very reluctant to see this or any other government take any step which would discourage people of any age from using their physical and mental abilities to the very last hour that they can use them. There is nothing more pitiful than to see people lose their confidence in themselves, lose their happiness and their gaiety of spirit simply because they feel that they are unable longer to be engaged usefully in some occupation. Far from discouraging people in any occupation, I think it should be the role of government to say to people of 65, 70, 75, 80, yes, of any age: We want to see you work in any way you can to the very limit of your capacity. Undoubtedly those people who engage their brains and their bodies throughout the longest term of years are those who gain the greatest happiness out of life.
But I submit that the means test is one device by which we actually discourage saving rather than encourage it. Those who have had the responsibility for the administration of legislation of this type-the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll), as well as the Minister of National Health and Welfare, has had that responsibility-know that there is an almost irresistible temptation for people to divest themselves of any small holdings they may have if those small holdings are going to deprive them of old age pensions with a means test, when the savings that they have are at the same time inadequate to maintain them.
In our complex society, even with high wage levels it becomes increasingly difficult, with the taxes and other obligations that people are called upon to assume, to make savings at a level that will give the individual continuing security throughout his declining years. That does not mean that people should not save. They can and should be encouraged to save, but at this very time we see what inflation does to an income that twenty years ago might have been regarded as a safe and secure income for the remainder of the life of an aged couple after their working years. The trouble is that if you impose a means test you then force people who have saved to use up their savings, and you ultimately place a very large number of them in precisely the same position as those who have not saved a cent. That should not be the result of government action at any time.
Let us see exactly what happens with respect to the payment of old age pensions with a means test at 65 carrying on until
IMr. Drew.]

people are able to receive a pension without a means test at 70. At 65, in industrial work generally men and women find that their engagement is terminated. Perhaps that does not apply so much in times of abnormal demand for workers, but ordinarily, whether or not we think 65 is the maximum limit of physical fitness, the fact remains that industry very largely has established that as the age level of employment. Consequently if that is the level that industry is going to establish, it is the level at which we must recognize that some payment is necessary. If a means test is applied then those who have saved are going to be called upon to use up their savings, and, unless they have made quite substantial savings, when they reach the age of 70 they will be in the same position as those who have saved nothing up to the age of 65.
That is a situation which I do not think any hon. member in any part of this house can contemplate with satisfaction. I am not disregarding the heavy financial obligations involved. I have emphasized my own belief over and over again, in this house and elsewhere, that we should seek in every way we can to make our whole system of old age pensions a fully contributory system, operating on an actuarial basis as far as possible, always recognizing that through periods of enforced unemployment and otherwise it cannot be rigidly on an actuarial basis similar to that employed by an insurance company. I believe, however, that step by step from this point, gaining experience as we proceed with the administration of this type of legislation, we should seek more and more to make it a fully contributory system so that the people themselves who will ultimately benefit will recognize that we do not get anything for nothing, and also so that they themselves will feel that this is in fact a payment as of right and not a payment ex gratia. Everyone then realizes that they are contributing directly in some way towards a fund which will give them a measure of security throughout their declining years.
I welcome the introduction of this motion which indicates that we will be proceeding with this legislation. There is no part of our community more deserving of the thought and consideration of every hon. member than the older generation who have contributed so much to the advancement of the nation which we collectively represent. Every consideration should be based on the idea that we are not extending charity but that we are simply extending that measure of basic security which the people of this nation have the right to expect that they will receive.
As has been said already, the best answer we can give to communism is to show those'

in Russia or elsewhere what our system does for people who are old or blind or incapacitated in any way. In the legislation we are all going to support, with whatever discussion of detail there may be, we are making a great advance; but I urge that we recognize the principles involved and that we do not discourage saving by asking anyone to use up his savings and reduce himself to the same position as that of those who have not saved. We should work for that day when, at whatever age pensions are paid, they will be pensions as of right, without a means test, payable to those who have earned the respect and support of the country.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.


The Deputy Chairman:: Shall the resolution carry, or shall I call it one o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Stanley Howard Knowles: One o'clock.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would my hon. friend not let the resolution carry? I am sure that after this adequate discussion he will be glad to give me the measure of co-operation that he usually affords.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, Mr. Chairman. I have two or three questions, and I do not think it fair to Hansard that we stay longer now.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Ask them now.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at three o'clock.


Stanley Howard Knowles: At one o'clock, Mr. Chairman, I suggested that we give a few minutes consideration in committee to this resolution, because of a few questions that are of concern to the people affected by this legislation. As the minister can well understand, I have a fairly heavy volume of correspondence on this subject. I may say further that, like the Minister of National Health and Welfare, I recently spent a few days in Manitoba. In fact, I was there for the same purpose that he was there.


An hon. Member:: Not quite.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Somebody says "not quite." In other words, I was there for the opposite purpose. While I was there, a considerable number of people asked me questions about this legislation, and they are the kind of questions that are being put to me by correspondents. They are questions that accept the basic framework of the new program but seek information as to details that are important to the people affected.
Old Age Assistance Act
In the first place I find that people are anxious to know when and how they will go about applying for each of the pensions now envisaged. Some publicity has been given to the fact that there will be a registration for the pension for those 70 and over; and I take it that we may get information about that matter later in the present session. So far as I can ascertain, however, no information has been given as to how and when people are to go about applying for this new pension for those from 65 to 69. Can the minister say something on that question?


Paul Joseph James Martin: To answer the second part of the question, they will apply in the way that they apply now. Persons who have reached the age of 65 will apply through the provinces, as they do now, subject to certain procedures that will be adopted as a result of discussions that we shall be having in the month of July when, in conformity with an undertaking given to the provinces, the interprovincial old age pensions board will meet.
As to the group 70 and over, I stated this morning that a supplementary item will be presented asking for finances and authority to take steps to provide for registration of those who are qualified for the universal pension at 70. In that connection may I say that we already have arranged, with the consent of the provincial departments concerned, to send officers to examine their present files in order to preclude any undue delay. We propose to use our ten regional family allowance offices as centres from which to conduct the operations in each province. The more than 300,000 people now in receipt of pensions will not have to register in the usual way, because they are known to be qualified for the pension under the existing act. The 400,000 or so others who we estimate may qualify will apply for their pension on forms that are now being printed. Through the press, the radio, and any other means it may be thought desirable to acquaint the general public with the requirements, ample notification will be given, so that on January 1, 1952, these people will be fully registered and will be able to qualify.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That registration will start some time fairly soon, will it? I believe July has been mentioned.


Paul Joseph James Martin: As quickly as we get the authority, we will act. We have already started, as a matter of fact.


Stanley Howard Knowles: From what the minister said with regard to the group from 65 to 69, I take it that those in that bracket who wish to apply for the pension will, in effect, have
4428	HOUSE OF
Old Age Assistance Act to wait until the discussions with the provinces have been had, and, perchance, until the provinces have passed any supplementary legislation that may be required. That means that it may be later in the year before they can apply. I hope that the minister's department, in the publicity that it gives to these two plans, and to the registration and the making of applications for these two pensions, will do its best to avoid confusion. There is already some confusion in the public mind. I take it that registration for the 70 and over pension is likely to start fairly soon,-


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have said that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -but that the making of applications for the 65-69 pension will be delayed for a few months. I hope that the advertising done with regard to this matter Will clear up these various points.


Paul Joseph James Martin: There will be no delay whatsoever on our part with regard to the 70 and over group. With regard to the 65-69 group, my hon. friend knows that we are not in full control of the situation. The reason why this legislation is being introduced today is to ensure that, as soon as it is passed, we shall be in a position to conclude agreements forthwith with every one of the ten provinces. Whether or not these agreements are concluded will depend upon the decision that each province takes in the light of its obligations, as it sees them, and in the light of the circumstances attending in that province. As soon as this legislation is passed we shall lose no time in getting agreements with each province. In fact, the agreements are already partly formulated. In some provinces there will be a desire-and I suppose in some cases there will be the need-to call the provincial legislatures. From my discussion with the provinces a few weeks ago, I understand that will be done forthwith. The provinces and ourselves, subject to what I have said about their authority and their having the final control, will not, I feel sure, sponsor any delay whatsoever in this matter.
My hon. friend will understand that the extent of fulfilment of the agreement depends upon the other contracting party, both as to the fact and as to the extent of its participation. So far as we are concerned, we are putting on the statute book enabling legislation to provide old age assistance at the age of 65, operative as of January 1, 1952. It could be-I do not say that it will be the case-that some provinces might wish to begin at a higher age. If they do, that would not prejudice the operation of the plan to begin at 65 in any other province that wanted to do so. It could be also that some provinces will not be disposed-and again I am not saying that this will be the case-to accept


the financial responsibility involved in some of the amendments with regard to permissible income and the like, and would prefer to have a lower figure. If such a province wanted an agreement of that kind, we would not stand in the way. Our hope would be that there would be uniform adoption of the legislation by all provinces but naturally each of them will have to assess this matter in the light of its commitments and of its own situation. In the recent conference with the provinces, while there was a disposition on the part of some of them to delay the application until April 1, I told them that the government's position was that so far as we were concerned the operation of the whole scheme, both for the universal pensions and the pensions for the sixty-five to sixty-nine age group, would be operative as of January 1, 1952.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I will not pursue that matter any further except to say this to the minister. I for one would not object if he asked parliament for sufficient dollars to advertise this whole matter properly so that the people affected will know precisely where they stand.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We will.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have a second question and then one more that the people are asking me. The first of these two questions relates to the time when the first cheques will be issued. A good deal has been said about January 1, 1952 being the effective date of both pieces of legislation. Those who are experienced with old age pensions know that under the present plan the cheque for the month of January is not received until the last day of January-at least that is the case in most provinces. People who will qualify for the new pension, free of the means test, at age 70 or over are wondering when they will get their first cheque. Will they get it at the end of January, the middle of January or the first of January? Some hon. members are acting as if these are not important questions, but they are very important to the people affected. I ask the same question with regard to those in the group from 65 to 69. Will the payment that they receive for the month of January be as it is at the present time, at the end of January? Will it come along in the middle of the month, as in the case of family allowances, or could it not be on the first of the month?


Paul Joseph James Martin: As I said, the operation of the whole scheme comes into effect on January 1, 1952. The cheques will be payable around the end of the month.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I will pursue that when we get the bill. That was not a very satisfactory answer.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Let us wait until we get the bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This gives the minister a chance to make some changes in the bill. The other question that I wanted to ask is one that has been put to me by a great many people and it is this. What will happen to liens that are registered against the properties of old age pensioners at the present time? X shall ask a similar question with regard to property of people who will qualify for pension in the case of those 65 to 69. Will liens be placed on their property? If so, will these liens be cancelled at age 70? But more important, with reference to people in the age group 70 and over who have property against which liens are now in effect, will they be cancelled when this legislation comes into effect?


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend had better wait until we get the bill and deal with the question of recoveries from estates, which I have generally noted.


Mr. Quelch:: One question; can the minister say whether or not this legislation is intended to affect in any way the recipients of veterans' allowances?


Paul Joseph James Martin: It does not in any way affect it, but when we come to the bill I will deal with that aspect of it. It is not going to take away from the veterans anything that they now have under existing legislation.


Victor Quelch: Will the veterans who are today in receipt of war veterans' allowances-


Paul Joseph James Martin: If my hon. friend will wait until we come to the bill and he sees the provision before him he will agree that that is the best way of dealing with it.


Mr. Graydon:: I want to ask the minister to consider the question of a change in the bill, if it is not already printed and ready for distribution. I think I may have a very large majority of the committee with me on this, and that will be an unusual thing, to say the least. I do not like the name of old age pensions. The name ought to be changed. It is outmoded and has connotations that ought not to be perpetuated in legislation at this time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would my hon. friend care to wait until the bill comes before him? He may find something in that regard that he would want to deal with.


Gordon Graydon: I want to make a suggestion. I know the minister may not have adopted the same phraseology as I think ought to be adopted, and this will at least give him an opportunity of comparing my
Old Age Assistance Act suggestion with his own. Perhaps I am fighting a losing battle on that ground, but I know that the broadmindedness of the minister will come to the front when a decision is made.
I do want to suggest to the minister that the connotations of old age pensions ought to be dropped once and for all from any legislation of this kind. I fancy my suggestion is one that would be acceptable at least to the far corner of the house, and I do not know any reason why it should not be acceptable in all corners of the house. In view of the fact that a great number of people are coming under the arrangement whereby this assistance is automatically paid without a means test when they reach the age of 70, I think we ought to call it a national dividend, because it is a national dividend. I have made a study of it with some care and I am of the opinion that no better name could be applied to this assistance, because in a very large sense that is exactly what it is. I do not think you could go wrong by calling it what it is. I make the suggestion to the minister that he abolish all this phraseology about old age pensions and call this new legislation legislation with respect to national dividends.


Mr. Fair:: I want to support the suggestion made by the hon. member for Peel.


Some hon. Members:: You would.


Robert Fair: Some hon. members have said
"you would". It looks to me as if we are making some progress, anyway. While some of our friends across the way may say "you would", perhaps I should remind them that we are now supplying a national dividend to Canadians up until sixteen years of age. Prior to that we were paying national dividends to people of seventy and over with a means test. The legislation that is being introduced today will provide a further national dividend for the group age 65 to 69, so I think we are making fairly good progress.
Whether our friends across the way realize it or not, they are getting along in our direction. These things are possible. I might say that many people are opposed to the title "old age pension". We have had the Barr colonists in Lloydminster, Alberta and Saskatchewan. They have been in that part of the country since 1903. Some of them are my very best friends, and some of them who have done a lot to bring Canada to its present position think that we should have a change of name to the one mentioned by the hon. member for Peel, which is a good one. If we do that it will perhaps educate

Blind Persons Act
us and some others who do not realize the fact that we should have national dividends for everybody.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Martin thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 395, to provide for old age assistance.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read
the second time?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Next sitting.



BLIND PERSONS ACT


Paul Joseph James Martin: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure respecting allowances for blind persons and to provide for the payment to the provinces out of the consolidated revenue fund of amounts in respect of allowances for blind persons paid by the provinces, to certain persons who have attained the age of twenty-one years, and who are blind and in need of such allowances, not exceeding in respect of any recipient, seventy-five per centum of forty dollars monthly or of the amount of the allowance paid by the provinces monthly to the recipients, whichever is the lesser; and to provide for the making of agreements with the provinces in relation thereto and for the conditions and duration of such agreements.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Dion in the chair.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think a word should be
said to the effect that this resolution and the bill based upon it are indeed welcome. As a matter of fact those interested in the welfare of our blind persons have for a considerable time been requesting that the legislation respecting the blind be put in a statute separate from the legislation respecting our elder citizens. I take it the reason for that request is the force of circumstances.
Indeed, now that the old age pension plan is being put on a different basis it becomes necessary that our legislation respecting blind allowances be taken out of the existing legislation and put in a statute by itself. That, I take it, is also made necessary by reason of the fact that the resolution we passed a few moments ago specifies that the federal government shall pay 50 per cent of the pension paid to those from 65 to 69. Obviously in respect of blind persons it would be unfair to the provinces to put that division into effect. Rather it is only fair to the provinces that the present relationship

of a payment of 75 per cent by the federal government and 25 per cent by the provinces should be continued.
I take it however that although this bill will meet the requests of those interested in blind persons, so far as it goes, in that it separates their legislation from old age pension legislation, there is nothing in the bill to be based on the resolution which makes any change in substance so far as allowances for blind persons are concerned. Could the minister say whether that is so? So far as matters of substance are concerned, will the bill simply carry forward what is now in our legislation respecting the blind?


The Chairman:: Shall the resolution carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Could the minister answer my question?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I wished to make sure no one else wished to speak. If no one else is speaking I will say briefly this, that my hon. friend has welcomed with pleasure, as I am sure the country will generally, this measure separating assistance given to blind persons from assistance given to the aged. This is in keeping with the request made to me by the various organizations representing the blind over the period of the last few years.
Unlike the bill based on the resolution we have just passed, the contribution of the federal government in this instance is not, despite the higher commitments involved in the total program, being reduced. It continues at 75 per cent.
I am not so sure after listening to my hon. friend this morning whether he and I will agree as to what changes of substance mean. But certainly as I understand the word he will find that the bill when presented does have very important modifications that are changes of substance and that will improve the situation so far as blind persons are concerned.
In any event my hon. friend will realize that, as in the other instance, the extent to which we have taken action in the bill is largely dependent upon the agreement we were able to obtain with the provinces whose financial responsibility in these matters varies in accordance with the terms, particularly, of the permissible income section.


Robert Fair: In connection with the permissible income section I suggest there are one or two changes which should be made, and which I would ask the minister to consider. I refer to blind farmers. As the minister and other hon. members know, there is no set income formula on the farm. In one year there may be a profit while in the next year there may be a loss. If a farmer has a profit in one year his pension is cut, whereas

in the next year he may have a loss and there is no increase in the pension.
Blind farmers have suggested to me that I bring to the attention of the minister the necessity for the levelling off of incomes for pension purposes, as it is done for income tax purposes. This seems to be a reasonable request. People who are farming, and who have all their senses, are having a bad enough time; but for blind farmers it is worse.


Mr. Blair:: Mr. Chairman, I am sure there is nothing controversial in the bill, and I am sure hon. members will be in complete agreement that anything suggested for the benefit of these unfortunate people who happen to be blind should be done. I do not think there is anything to be said at the present time, or that anything need be said until we have the bill before us. I cannot see any reason for further debate, because I believe we are all in complete agreement.


Gordon Graydon: How many blind persons, from the age of 21, on, will come under this measure?


Paul Joseph James Martin: We estimate there are about
18,000	blind persons in the country and, roughly, 11,000 between the ages of 21 and 69.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Marlin thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 396, to provide for allowances for blind persons.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the second time?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Next sitting.



FEDERAL DISTRICT COMMISSION


Right Hon.  L. S.@: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to amend the Federal District Commission Act, 1927, to increase the number of members of the commission from nineteen to twenty; to provide also that the commission may construct in the national capital district railways and related facilities and. for this purpose, acquire land and real property and enter into agreements with railway companies for the use, maintenance and operation of such railways; and to provide further for the payment of limited grants to the appropriate authorities in municipalities in respect of property situated therein and acquired for inclusion in Gatineau park.


George Alexander Drew: Is the Prime Minister going to make a statement at this point?
Federal District Commission Act


Mr.   Si. Laurenl@: I had not intended making any statement as the resolution is quite selfexplanatory. There are three points dealt with in the resolution. First, it is intended to increase the members of the commission by one. By the 1946 amendment it was provided that there would be a member on the commission representing each of the provinces, and the number provided for was nine. It is felt that Newfoundland now being one of the provinces should also have a representative on the commission. The first purpose of the bill to be founded on this resolution is to make provision for the appointment of a member to represent the province of Newfoundland.
The second purpose is to take advantage of the fact that we are amending the act to provide for something which has heretofore been provided for by a dollar item in the estimates. In the 1950 estimates and again in the estimates for this year a dollar item was provided to authorize the federal district commission to carry on that part of the recommendations of the joint committee that had to do with providing facilities to improve the railway situation in Ottawa and ultimately to do away with the trackage that leads into the Union station in the heart of the city. It being necessary to amend the act it was felt that it would be more proper to have this in the act itself rather than to rely from year to year upon the dollar item in the estimates.
The third has to do with Gatineau park. Gatineau park is planned to include an area something over 70,000 acres, and some
30,000	acres or more have already been acquired in rural municipalities. The assessment and taxes on these lands would have amounted to something less than $5,000 distributed among a few rural municipalities While that amount is not large it is felt that there was some hardship on those municipalities to decrease their tax revenue from the land to be included in the national park out of which they do not derive any special benefit at the present time. The bill to be founded on the resolution will empower the federal district commission to make grants to these local municipalities not exceeding what the taxes would have been before the lands were taken over to form part of the park.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I realize that it will be much better to discuss the proposals in detail when the bill is before us. It is recognized that there will be a desire on the part of hon. members to proceed with the consideration of the bill. One reason why I raised a question as to whether the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) proposed to make
4432	HOUSE OF
Federal District Commission Act a statement at this time was that the powers that appear to be conferred are so extensive that one does come face to face with the possibility of being called upon to consider some special relationship between this commission and the municipal council of the city of Ottawa. It surely must be coming to the point where the municipal council, without in any way diminishing its ordinary authority, will be called upon to assume certain obligations which may be greatly affected by this bill. I do not know whether the Prime Minister felt that this was the time to make any remarks relating to the possibility of some new plan of administration of this area.
Motion agreed to and house went into committee, Mr. Dion in the chair.


Mr. St. Laurenl:: Mr. Chairman, I shall deal first with the remarks of the leader of the opposition. I think both he and I read the same newspaper. I was a bit concerned the other day, as possibly he was, when I read that article saying that so long as Mr. Bronson was chairman of the commission there would be no cause for anxiety as to the extent to which the powers of the federal district commission might be exercised, but that it might be that under the legislation to be proposed they were going to have power to enter into businesses that might go beyond what was really required for their purposes. I immediately got out the bill to see whether there was anything to justify apprehension of that kind and I found that there was not. This is strictly related to the implementation of the recommendations of the joint committee with respect to the changing of the railway location.
Since I have mentioned his name I should like to take this opportunity to express on behalf of the government, and I think on behalf of all members of the house, very sincere appreciation of the great devotion which Mr. Bronson has brought over the years to the implementation of the recommendations of the joint committee of the two houses of parliament. I do concur with the writer of an article which I saw in a newspaper the other day, no matter how extensive the powers may be, as long as they are being exercised under the control of Mr. Bronson no one will have any occasion for anxiety. In addition, however, I think that the terms of the statute are such that there is not apt to be any conflict with any municipal authorities. Frequently there are discussions with the municipal authorities, and it took some time to reach an agreement upon the contribution that the city of Ottawa would make to the bridge now being constructed over the railway yards in the heart of the 

city. But that has been settled by an agreement which I think is working out very satisfactorily both for the federal district commission and for the civic authorities.
I think it would be proper for me to say at this time that the federal district commission has had the fullest possible co-operation from the municipal authorities of the city of Ottawa and from the municipal authorities of the other municipalities having territory within the federal district. It is for the purpose of maintaining these good relations that the commission feels that it should make grants to those rural municipalities, with respect to the large areas that are being taken over for the Gatineau park that would be such as not to occasion them, at least until such time as the park is completed and in operation and they derive some benefits therefrom, any loss in their municipal taxation.
I think all who are interested in the development of the capital owe a debt to the chairman and members of the federal district commission for the manner in which they have succeeded in enlisting the good will and in conserving good relations not only with the municipal authorities but also with the people of the districts where the work is being carried on. I think it is a very happy example of the kind of co-operation that can be brought about between different levels of government, and I should like to include in my tribute an expression of gratitude for the co-operation that has been obtained from the provincial governments of Ontario and Quebec. I think that at every level there has been the most satisfactory degree of co-operation and helpfulness to each other that could be desired in carrying out that kind of a plan. It seems to me that it is being felt by them as it has been felt in every quarter of this house that what is being done here is something of national scope that will be a source of satisfaction and pride for every Canadian citizen.


George Alexander Drew: The Prime Minister was correct in the assumption that my question had been prompted by certain comments I had read in different articles which suggested the possibility that the bill, which I have not seen, would be extending the powers to an extent that they might limit or impair the authority of the municipal council. That was the reason for my question, and the Prime Minister has answered the question that I asked. I should like to join with him in an expression of very real tribute to Mr. Fred Bronson and the other members of the commission who, with great unselfishness and with a great amount of effort, have gone much further-


Mr.   Si. Laurenl@: And intelligence.


George Alexander Drew: -in carrying forward this
development than may generally be realized throughout Canada today. It is noticeable that people visiting the parliament buildings are greatly impressed with the model of the ultimate plan which is available for examination. A considerable part of that has already taken form, and I think that this is a fine example of how it is possible to enlist the services of unselfish citizens in the fulfilment of something that is not only to the advantage of the people of Ottawa and the surrounding country but will be of advantage in the years ahead in giving to Canadians a capital of which they will all be proud.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Si. Laurenl thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 397, to amend the Federal District Commission Act, 1927.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Dion in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE

[Stage Direction]
255. Departmental administration, $869,901.
William Gourlay Blair: Does the minister wish to
make a statement?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, I thought I would
deal with things on the various estimates as we go along.


William Gourlay Blair: Mr. Chairman, every year on
these estimates I have usually made an appeal for a national health plan for Canada. In fact I have made this appeal year after year on behalf of this party. At times I have thought that these continuous appeals would become tiresome to members of the house, but I came into the house in 1945 with the idea in mind that I would try to do something for the people of this country by attempting to add my voice to those who felt that a national health plan for Canada was a necessity. Year after year since that time, and two or three times a year, on behalf of the Progressive Conservative party I have spoken on the necessity of a health plan for Canada, a plan that would bring treatment to every person in Canada no matter in what district he or she resides. But I was amazed last night to read in the evening press the remarks made by one of the cabinet ministers in the Waterloo by-election campaign. I am perfectly aware that in general elections or in by-elections parties debate certain
Supply-Health and Welfare things to their own advantage, but in this case when it comes to a matter of the policy of a party that is an entirely different thing. I admit we have all made statements for our parties and that we have argued in election campaigns, but this thing seems to be something entirely different in that it affects the policy of this party. Before entering into any discussion, however, I intend to again clarify the position of this party as far as national health insurance is concerned. I intend to quote from an article which appeared in the Toronto Telegram of June 20. The Telegram was absolutely fair at that time; the Liberal meetings were covered by one correspondent, the account of the C.C.F. meetings was written by another, and the Conservative meetings were covered by still another. I was amazed to read what the minister of immigration had said at a meeting in New Hamburg. The first matter he dealt with was export markets, and that was perfectly normal. But I am going to read some of this report dealing with the second matter he referred to, and some of it is in quotation marks:
He assured his farmer audience that the government is soon to propose a national health scheme-[DOT] as promised earlier-and he added that he expected the Progressive Conservatives would "oppose it at first, then try to take credit for it after."


Mr. Sinclair:: Finish the quotation.


William Gourlay Blair: That is all I have here.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Perhaps I could put the quotation on record:
He added that he expected the Progressive Conservatives would oppose it at first and then try to take credit for it, as they did with family allowances.


George Alexander Drew: Then that just shows how
inaccurate it was.


James Sinclair: Perhaps I might just repeat
what the leader of the opposition said about family allowances: "This bill is an outrageous bribe-"


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: The hon. member for
Lanark has the floor.


William Gourlay Blair: I am going to quote from a
speech I made in this house on June 30, 1948, when the matter of national health grants was being brought into the picture. Hon. members will remember that national health grants were announced by the Prime Minister in May, 1948, but we did not get around to discussing them until the last day of that session, which was June 30. At that time I said:
In May the Prime Minister announced increased grants for national health. We welcomed the introduction of a plan that would help out national

Supply-Health and Welfare health. The Progressive Conservative party, realizing this need, has long urged a broader program for national health and for increased grants. During the time I have been a member of this house we have repeatedly drawn the attention of the members of the house to the urgent necessity of action to overcome the deficiencies in our national health services. No later than March of this year I spoke on this matter in the house; I stated that the time had come to enunciate and put into effect a national health program for Canada. I further stated that the objective plan of this party was one which would bring health services to every Canadian citizen regardless of race, economic status or geographical position.
Then I went on to deal with the matter of the health grants:
A year ago I drew the attention of the house to the necessity of a national stocktaking with regard to health. There is nothing new in the program that has been introduced. We welcome it and we welcome the increased grants. I believe that every member of this house, regardless of his political affiliation, approves any measure which will cut down mortality rates and relieve human suffering. Consideration of national health measures and anything that will better the condition of the people in regard to national health should be far above any political considerations.
I simply want to put on record that through the years, and certainly since 1945 when I came into this house, this party has advocated a national health program for Canada. I personally have advocated it at every opportunity. So in regard to this statement I thought our position should be made clear as far as national health is concerned. Sometimes these matters do become open to debate, and sometimes government members or even opposition members make certain statements for the sake of their party. In connection with national health grants and grants to hospitals I remember a speech made on the budget last spring by the hon. member for Mount Royal, a gentleman for whom I have the highest regard but who, I am quite sure, misunderstood the situation. At page 2328 of Hansard for April 24 of this year the hon. member said:
Another important medium of communication is the field of public relations. Are we doing a job in this field? No one will accuse the Department of National Health and Welfare of hiding its light under a bushel nor should they do so because their work is both instructional and educational. But how many persons realize that in the last two years, through the initiative of the department, the federal government has been responsible for the construction of 27,000 new hospital beds, many of them in my own constituency, in a total of 40,000? I doubt if the people of this country realize the revolution which has been brought about, nationally speaking, in national health and public welfare owing to the initiative and research policies of the department.
I am sure the minister himself would refute that statement in what was otherwise a really good speech. I feel sure the hon. member for Mount Royal misunderstood the whole situation when he suggested that this

department was responsible for providing
27,000	hospital beds. I have mentioned this matter on other occasions. In my own province of Ontario grants are given for the construction of hospital beds, and the grants given by this department do not begin to cover the cost of constructing hospitals. I remember that in a speech some time ago on the estimates of this department I pointed out that in this province the average cost of a hospital bed, over and above any grants that might be made, was something like $7,500. That is in addition to the amount given by the federal government and, in our case, the provincial government. I am familiar with what is happening in one town in my own constituency, where they are working on the idea of building a hospital. This town has a population of 5,000; they are very anxious for a hospital, but the question of financing has made it very difficult. In order to keep this matter clear, while we certainly approve of the grants given under the health plan, at the present time it is difficult for municipalities to obtain the money necessary to build a hospital. It is a difficult job to raise the thousands of dollars required, because hospital construction is very expensive.
I was rather pleased yesterday to read of some of the research being carried on at the present time. This was brought out at a meeting of the Canadian Medical Association in Montreal. It may be of interest to hon. members to learn that 2,000 doctors at a convention in Montreal were able to witness by television operations performed in various hospitals, some of them a mile or more away. Apparently the television camera was placed above the operating table, and thus they were able to get a view that would be open only to a doctor assisting at the operation. This, of course, has nothing to do with the Department of National Health and Welfare or the consideration of these grants, but it does show what progress is being made and indicates that some of the things being discovered now will mean a great deal to the medical profession in future and, by means of further education, will be of assistance to those who may be suffering.
There are some needs in this country that should be fully discussed. I have mentioned one, the need for hospital beds and the difficulties municipalities find in providing them. If we are to carry on a program of making treatment available to everyone, "then it will be necessary to have a further program in connection with hospital accommodation. It is necessary that we should make treatment available to every person. Conditions in the medical profession and in hospitals are rapidly changing. New discoveries have produced new methods of treatment. Some of

the diseases which used to cause concern to medical men have now been defeated by research and the advent of new forms of drugs. But this is going to bring about an entirely different situation, and we are rapidly coming to it.
The life span of people in this country is becoming longer, owing to these discoveries. We are now able to cope with diseases which we formerly could not do anything with in the matter of treatment. People are therefore going to live longer. We are going to have a class of older citizens. If we have this class of older citizens it is obvious that, when their life span runs out, they will die of some disease; and it will probably be some disease in connection with old age, probably disease of the cardiovascular system. You are going to have more people who die of strokes, heart disease and possibly cancer.
In considering the question of hospital accommodation for the future, we should consider this matter, because it is difficult to obtain accommodation for completely disabled aged persons owing to the fact that they usually suffer a long, lingering breakdown of health. That situation exists in all of the hospitals in the country and in the wards of the hospitals across the country. In every men's ward and in every women's ward there are some of these older people for whom there is no other place. If it is possible to get them into a rest home, that can be done. But few of these municipalities have rest homes for these elderly people. In the future we must therefore look forward to an entirely different class of disease existing among old people. Not only that, but we must make some arrangement to provide accommodation for them.
I am well aware of what is happening in some of the homes for the aged throughout Canada. It is true that there is accommodation there for them. But there is no hospital section in addition to these homes for the aged. This may not be a federal matter; it may come under the jurisdiction of the provincial health authorities. Nevertheless, that situation still exists. Often it is not possible to get some of these aged hospital cases into homes for the aged. I therefore leave that matter for the minister to consider because, in the future, we are going to have to deal with this increasing group of aged people who have become disabled through disease and who are not able to obtain accommodation in ordinary hospitals. Ordinary hospitals are jammed at the present time. The necessity for beds for acute cases is well known. Any person or any doctor who has had experience in trying to get patients into hospitals is well aware of that fact.
Supply-Health and Welfare
Another matter affecting the question of treatment is the present shortage of nurses. I am also aware that this may not be a federal matter, because the matter of trained nurses again comes within the realm of the provinces. Nevertheless, when we consider the broad picture of health across Canada, we feel that something should be done about this matter. There still exists a shortage of nurses throughout the whole of the country. It is difficult to obtain nurses for private duty. Possibly one of the reasons for that is that the nurses' hours have been cut down, something which entails the fact that we may need additional nurses. The hospitals are finding it increasingly difficult to secure a staff of nurses. This is something else in the way of difficulty being encountered by them, in addition to the financial troubles they are undergoing.
When I mention financial troubles, that brings to mind the question of the difficulty that some of these hospitals have in financing treatment for their people, both in private rooms and in wards. The cost of hospital maintenance now brings about a situation in which hospital executives find it extremely difficult to run the hospitals and to balance their accounts at the end of the year. The average hospital is run at a loss. That is something that is giving a great deal of worry to some of these people who are trying to carry on accommodation in hospitals throughout the country.
If, in addition to building, we could further the interests of the hospitals with additional money in some way, either through the provinces or through the federal department, a good deal of this trouble could be avoided. That is something that is not going to be easy to do. The unfortunate thing is that, with rising costs and with the trouble encountered in maintaining a hospital, the cost of hospital accommodation is being reflected on the patients, from those in the public wards to those in the private wards. The situation now is that it is difficult for the average person to pay for hospital accommodation. In the last few months I consulted the treasurers of some hospitals with regard to their difficulties, and I found out something that was amazing, namely that many of these hospitals would have further financial trouble if it were not for the fact that so many cases are coming in on prepaid medical plans. They are coming in on commercial plans, through organizations like the Blue Cross, and industrial health insurance; and the ordinary commercial insurance policy that we buy is now becoming fairly popular. But there is at the present time a great need that the policies which these people buy should be clarified. The people do not always look at the small

Supply-Health and Welfare print. Sometimes you have the picture of a man coming in and saying: My wife was in the hospital for a certain length of time. I thought that our insurance entirely covered this matter but I find, written in in small print at the bottom of the policy, and to which I paid no attention when I bought it, the proviso that this policy does not cover the type of disease from which my wife suffered.
Another matter which comes to my mind is the old question of research. There are still some diseases for which a cure, if we could find one, would be a boon to civilization. I refer to such diseases as cancer, poliomyelitis, multiple sclerosis, certain heart conditions and, of course, the increasing number of mental cases throughout the country. I have mentioned this matter before, and there is no doubt that the situation still exists. I refer to the fact that mental cases are increasing faster than the civilian population; or you might regard it in another way, namely in comparison with other types of cases which are admitted to hospitals as acute and chronic cases. There is a further difficulty in this matter; it has to do with the question of accommodation for people who are suffering from mental disease. There is again a great shortage of beds for patients of this type who usually require a long period of hospitalization. This is also something we shall have to deal with in the future. I mentioned first the question of these people who are going to suffer from the increasing diseases of old age. The other thing that I point out is what I have just mentioned, namely the increasing number of mental cases. We have been able to deal with the diseases of short duration, for which we have found an answer; but there is only one answer to the problem of mental disease and also those other diseases which I mentioned, and that is research. I have advocated money for research so that we might, in conjunction with other nations, find an answer to these problems. But there is much that could be done.
I was and am interested in the program put on by the Ontario government in the treatment of people who are suffering from poliomyelitis or infantile paralysis. Every case in Ontario is sent to a selected group of hospitals. The Ontario government pays the full cost of all the treatment for poliomyelitis sufferers, and owing to the fact that they are grouped together, and that the treatment is available, many cures have come to light which otherwise would not have happened had the patient been a patient at home, and probably he would have ended up a hopeless cripple. It is simply amazing what has been done under this program. While I am not


aware of what is happening in some of the other provinces in the dominion, I would suggest, sir, that if, this treatment could be furthered in any way, because of the results which have been obtained in Ontario, we should see that every poliomyelitis patient gets into one of the selected hospitals where the treatment is thoroughly understood. Although we have not an answer to the disease, the treatment could be made available to those patients.
Multiple sclerosis still exists as a problem. In a speech I made in the house during the short session last fall I mentioned that I had letters from three people scattered across my own constituency suffering from multiple sclerosis. They have spent all their money trying to get cured. They wrote asking if there was some place where a treatment could be continued or where they could be cared for. It is rather sad, sir, to see young people who are hopeless cripples, without very much to look forward to in life, trying to find some place where they can be accommodated. As I said before, it is difficult to accommodate long chronic cases in hospitals where beds are urgently demanded for acute cases.
The matter of treatment for certain cardiovascular conditions is brought to our minds every day or so, and if we could find an answer to the condition where prominent men in middle life are dropping out rapidly through coronary thrombosis attacks we would have gone a long way to solving something else which is becoming all too common. I do not know whether we have better conditions so far as diagnosis is concerned, or whether the advent of the electrocardiographs have brought to light more cases than we had before, but it does seem to me that there are more cases than formerly existed. Therefore if we could find an answer to that problem, whether it exists in our way of life, whether it has something to do with diet,-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Or age of the population.


William Gourlay Blair: Or ageing population.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Or of the age of the population.


William Gourlay Blair: Yes, or of the ageing of the population, because every one of us has noticed in the paper every few days an item saying that some prominent man in the life of the country or some friend has suddenly died from coronary thrombosis. It is getting to be more than a disease of old age or of middle age, because the age limit seems to be coming down. I noticed the other day that a young man of thirty-I knew of him- passed out very suddenly with coronary thrombosis. Every once in a while you notice that it is getting into the lower age group;

whether it is the strain and stress of present-day life I do not know. There is something, and if we could only find the answer to that, then we would have solved another problem so far as national health is concerned.
The problem of mental disease is one which has existed for some time, and which is rapidly becoming worse. Not only are we short of accommodation for these people, but we are short of beds. Even if a certain percentage, a gradually growing percentage, of these people are cured, there are still problems regarding mental disease where research could do a great deal. We wonder why increasing numbers of the population are suffering from mental disease. We wonder whether something further could be done by way of cure. Certainly at the present time this population is growing more rapidly than we would ever like to see, and we look forward to the future still hoping that there will be no further growth in the numbers suffering from this disease. At the same time we must deal with present-day conditions as they are. I make this suggestion. Out of the national health allotment some place let us take increasing sums for research on disease.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We are doing that. I see the item in the national health program under the research grant.


William Gourlay Blair: I know there is a certain amount being granted for this purpose, but my policy in regard to some of these things would be even more research. I have always backed the minister on any money that is spent for this purpose.


Paul Joseph James Martin: So that my remarks may
perhaps get out where I want them to get out, may I say that I thank my hon. friend for what he has said. We have given very considerable amounts for research in the field of mental illness. There are still available in the department funds for this purpose which we have been urging certain bodies to use-I will not say where but my hon. friend I think knows where-and I wish that it were possible for some of these agencies to take advantage of these funds in addition to what has already been done in this very important field.


William Gourlay Blair: I hope that the minister is able to get this thing working. I know the difficulties under which he labours, because up to this time there has not been a tendency to do research work on mental cases. I again bring to the attention of the minister the fact that last spring and the spring before we had these completely disabled people approach us for some help. It is really pitiable every year when they come here. They are in wheel chairs. Some of them are disabled beyond any possibility
Supply-Health and Welfare of doing anything that would help them to earn a living. I again suggest that in considering these estimates-I think every hon. member is in agreement-these people be admitted to the welfare group because we shall have to do something for them. We have passed a resolution to do something for the older people. Following that was a resolution to help the blind. We cannot forget the plea of these people who came before us at the time that the social security committee was sitting, asking that something be done for them.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I again lay emphasis on two major things so far as treatment in this country is concerned. First, let us do all the research work that we can do so far as the laboratories and the research workers of this country are concerned, and try to find an answer to some of these diseases for which we have no answer at the present time, and which seem to be growing with the increasing population of this country. Again I make a plea that consideration be given to some form of hospitals for the aged in this country where these people who are suffering from the chronic diseases of old age may get accommodation and treatment. This group is constantly growing and is going to become a problem- something we cannot very well avoid, because we have found the answer to other acute diseases and, with a population living longer, this group is becoming steadily larger. It is needless to point out that some of these chronic heart cases and the cancer cases for a year or two need nursing. They need something more than is given to them in homes for the aged. This is a group somewhere in between those who would go to hospitals for acute cases and those who would go to homes for the aged. In some way we must make arrangements whereby we can take care of these people.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am sure that on this occasion I can speak for members in all sections of the house when I say that we always listen with a great deal of interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Lanark when he speaks on matters relating to health, a field in which he is well qualified.
I think, too, that when he spoke about the urgent needs of our incurables and invalids, those in the condition of some who have visited us from time to time, he was likewise expressing the views of members in all parts of the house. I want to add once again my wholehearted support to the plea the hon. member for Lanark has just made, that the government refrain from delaying action with respect to this group of people. I am reminded again of the discussions in the committee on old age security which met last

Supply-Health and Welfare year. There, despite the fact that it was outside our terms of reference, on several occasions we found ourselves confronted with the problem of invalids and incurables; and it was the feeling of members of that committee that something should be done for them.
From time to time we have had discussions in the house on a motion brought in perennially by the hon. member for Terrebonne. I trust he will continue to present his motion to the house. Unfortunately that motion has never come to a vote, so that we have not been able to test the opinion of the house. I am sure if there were a free vote on it the motion would carry. I hope the government will recognize that fact and that it will not be long before there are pensions or other appropriate provisions for those unfortunate Canadians whom we refer to as invalids and incurables.
The phase of the work of the department to which I should like to address myself, in the main, is in fact the subject dealt with in the opening words of the hon. member for Lanark. Indeed, although I like to see things going along peacefully for the most part, I was rather glad to note that he provoked a bit of a squabble at the beginning of his speech. I was interested to hear him read certain comments from the press, which prompted the hon. member for Coast-Capilano to get in his nickel's worth, and which prompted the Minister of National Health and Welfare to reply as well.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You would not want to discuss this item when it comes up, would you? You could have a discussion then.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think I would rather discuss it now, just as the hon. member for Lanark discussed it now. I was just going to point out that what has disturbed me most in the last few years has been the indifference shown to this question of health insurance. Therefore I was glad to see a bit of a fight about it today, and I hope there will be more squabbles of that nature, even if they are political, if only we can get some attention paid to this important matter.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You know there is no indifference, and it is not fair to create that impression.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Oh, Mr. Chairman, not only do I know that there is indifference to it, but I noted on Saturday, May 5, in Arthur Blakely's Ottawa-Day-By-Day column appearing daily in the Montreal Gazette, this short paragraph:
Health insurance which once held a high priority in the federal government's plans, may be a Korean

casualty. Old age pensions proposals are going ahead, but health insurance studies have been slowed down or discontinued.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Blakely is a very estimable and fine man, but he does not have his finger on everything. That statement is inaccurate, and no one knows it more than the hon. member who is just speaking.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: When all these members
get through saying "hear, hear" may I remind the Minister of National Health and Welfare that I have been trying for several years in the discussion on his estimates to get him to give us some evidence of the work he says is being done with respect to health insurance studies. When we get down to the item of which he speaks-


Paul Joseph James Martin: When we get down to the
item; let us get down to it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister used to interrupt us like this three or four years ago, but I thought he was getting over that habit and was letting us make our own speeches. The fact of the matter is that the minister is annoyed by these references to the indifference of his department to health insurance studies. That simply proves to me that nothing is being done about this matter.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The by-election will be over
on Monday.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What is that?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The by-election will be over on Monday.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Now, you know, Mr. Chairman, it is a good thing we have by-elections. I take it that some members in the committee were glad that the by-election in Winnipeg South Centre took me out of the house for a couple of days-and some members are sorry I did not stay longer. What is good about these by-elections is that they-


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Order. We are not discussing by-elections.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am not discussing them at all. I am just pointing out that contests of that kind result in discussions on issues such as health insurance which, normally, the government tries to ignore. The hon. member for Lanark read a report from the Toronto Telegram telling us that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in the constituency of Waterloo South is telling the people down there that we are going to have a program of national health insurance. Well, I listened the other night in Winnipeg to an address over the radio by the Minister of National Health and Welfare-


Paul Joseph James Martin: A good speech, wasn't it?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Oh, I would have known whose speech it was even had it not been announced as the minister's speech, and even had it not been in his voice. I would have known from the way in which he overstated things just exactly who it was. But I did not hear him announce out in the constituency of Winnipeg South Centre that there was going to be a program of national health insurance. Instead, we get that in Waterloo South from the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
I am glad to have all these interjections.
I hope they reach Hansard. The reason I am pleased is that any squabble we have about this matter draws attention to it. I hope the result of it will be some action at an early date.
I do not need to speak at length on this matter, for I was provoked into making a speech on it last night, because of the terms of an answer given by the Prime Minister to a question asked yesterday when the orders of the day were called. I was certainly disturbed by the readiness with which the Prime Minister seemed to accept the idea that health insurance could be taken over and administered by the Canadian Medical Association.
I have the greatest respect and the highest regard for the medical profession. As a matter of fact I would not be here today were it not for the life-saving abilities of some of its members. But when it comes to administering health insurance I submit, as I suggested last night, that the program to which the Liberal party has already committed itself is the correct one, and that it should be handled in the name of the people of Canada by their government.
Now that we are taking forward steps in the field of old age security legislation, I feel that the most significant gap in our social security legislation is in this field of health insurance. Indeed I have in my hand a copy of a little pamphlet that was put out by the wartime information board during the war. This one was issued on November 15, 1944, and is one of a series designed primarily for the troops overseas so that they might know what was going on back home. The name of the series was "Canadian Affairs" and the title of this one is, "Canada plans security". In this very excellent summary of what was being done in this country I find this paragraph:
What about sickness? There are still gaps in our social security program. Chief among these concerns the question of illness. When sickness strikes, it strikes with a two-edged sword. Not only does the workman lose his pay during the period he is away from work-worse than that, he has to bear
Supply-Health and Welfare the crushing blow of medical, hospital, and other expenses, running sometimes into hundreds of dollars.
Having discussed the proposals for various social security measures which were being put forward at that time, the pamphlet had this to say:
Lost wages. There still remains the problem of loss of income due to sickness. Unemployment insurance only covers the worker who has lost a job and is still available for employment. If you are sick, you aren't available for employment-so you don't get unemployment insurance. Once health insurance is finally put into operation, it probably won't be long until the Unemployment Insurance Act is amended to provide for payment of benefits during the period of a workman's illness.
If that happens then a worker off for sickness would get unemployment insurance sickness benefit to make up for lost wages and would have his medical and hospital expenses met out of the health insurance fund-to which he has been contributing.
I read those excerpts from pamphlets put out, as I say, by the wartime information board during the years of the war just to indicate that the ideas that some of us proclaim are not so strange after all. That is precisely in line with what we have been saying from this corner of the house for a long time, namely, that health insurance is the most serious gap in our social security program and that an adequate healtht insurance plan requires at least three things.
It requires the provision of sufficient services, including hospitals, clinics, doctors, and everything that is needed to take care of the health of our people. Second, it requires a plan to enable the people to get those services; in other words, a plan that will pay for them. There is no point to having the best hospitals and the best doctors available if our people cannot avail themselves of their services without mortgaging the rest of their lives.
The third thing we need, and this is underlined in the quotations I have just read from this interesting pamphlet, is something in the nature of sickness benefits. When the wage earner is off sick it is not enough that there is a good hospital to go to or a fine doctor to attend him; it is not enough that his hospital bills are paid; there is also the problem of lost income. I thoroughly agree with the position taken in this Canadian Affairs pamphlet that something must be done along that line.
I know that this is getting to be an, old song with me, but I am going to repeat it and probably will continue doing so until we get some action along this line. What I would like to see would be the government bring in legislation in the field of health insurance. I would like to see the government come through with the kind of money that was talked about in 1945 when the

Supply-Health and Welfare federal government made proposals to the provinces for expenditures totalling $150 million a year on health services. The health grants program which was started in 1948 has entailed an annual expenditure in the order of $30 million, which is considerably less than $150 million suggested at the dominion-provincial conference in 1945.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is twice as much as the grants program proposed in 1945.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The total program proposed in 1945 called for an expenditure by the federal government of $150 million. Thirty million is not twice $150 million, it is only one-fifth.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If my hon. friend wants to confuse it, I cannot help it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If anybody is trying to confuse I suggest it is the minister when he says that $30 million is twice $150 million. The federal government is spending only $30 million.


James Sinclair: Only $30 million?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, only $30 million, as the parliamentary assistant says. Since the parliamentary assistant seems to be concerned about this I shall read from the last paragraph in this Canadian Affairs pamphlet as follows:
Canada in short, can afford to provide security for her people. She cannot afford not to provide it.
I am glad to see the hon. member for Coast-Capil-ano nodding his head.
If our people want it they can get it. The question that all of us have to decide for ourselves is this: Do we want it?


James Sinclair: When I said "only $30 million" I was remembering the tax debates of this session.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It was the federal government that made the proposals back in 1945 when peacetime budgets were envisaged at a much lower figure than they are today. At that time they proposed an expenditure of $150 million, but I said that only $30 million-I am saying that advisedly-in comparison with the federal government's own proposal of $150 million is being spent.
I submit that there is no field in which we could invest money more effectively or more usefully than in the field of national health. Before I was interrupted two or three times, I was going to say about six or seven minutes ago that my first choice would be for the government to bring in without delay legislation covering the field of health insurance, including all three of the major points in a health insurance program to which I referred a few moments ago.

If the government is going to be as slow as it usually is in these matters; if the government is going to continue to require to be prodded, despite the statement of the minister this morning that the government does not have to be prodded in these matters-we could not help but laugh at that-I suggest that the second best method to get this ball rolling is to set up a special committee on health insurance similar to the committee that was set up last year on old age security.
If the minister wants to pick up Hansard of early 1950 he can find in the debate on the motion to set up that committee that I objected to it. I doubted whether it was a good move, and I admit that readily. I had strong ideas as to what were the real motives behind the motion. But I admit now that that committee did an excellent job. Every member of the committee paid close attention to the task before him. We did a lot of research and we came out with a most useful and acceptable report. That report represents a milestone in our progress along this road. It represents a step along the way, although it must be remembered- that there are other steps to be taken.
I am convinced that a similar committee on health insurance-if you like, it can be composed of the same personnel-could do an excellent piece of work in studying this question. I am satisfied -that it would make recommendations which might likewise be another milestone in this field. I was disappointed that the Minister of National Health and Welfare found it possible on two occasions during -this session to say "No" to my request that such a committee be set up. I was disappointed also that yesterday the Prime Minister brushed aside that question. I still make -the plea and I hope the government will consider it between now and the October session. If there are any good reasons-and I cannot see any-why we should not have such a committee at that session at least I hope they will consider setting up such a special committee at the regular session of 1952. I say again that I agree with the views expressed in this Canadian Affairs pamphlet that the most significant gap in our social security program concerns the question of illness and I hope that we will soon start to take some worth-while steps in the field of health insurance, as part of an over-all social security program.


Mr. Beyerstein:: Mr. Chairman, there are two points with which I wish to deal briefly. The first is hospitalization. There seems to be some difficulty in most parts of Canada in stabilizing the cost of hospital services. In one or two provinces this issue is very

serious. To those who find this problem a bit perplexing I would suggest that they study the Alberta hospitalization plan. The purpose of Alberta's provincial hospitalization plan is to bring hospital services within the average citizen's ability to pay for them. This is done by distributing the total cost between the province, the municipalities and the patients. The plan comes into operation when the municipal council has passed the necessary bylaw and signed the prescribed agreement with an approved hospital or hospitals. I have in my .hand a copy of "Within Our Borders", for February, 1951, and I should like to quote briefly therefrom with respect to Alberta's hospitalization plan. It reads as follows:
Hospitals are graded according to their size, type of equipment, number of doctors and nurses, and other considerations. What is called "basic ward rate" ranges from $5.50 per day in a class A hospital to $4.25 per day in a class E hospital. Ordinarily the patient would have to pay the whole amount plus extras, but under the provincial plan he or she pays only $1 per day plus extras. The balance, which in a class A hospital would be $4.50 per day, is paid by the municipal authority with whom the agreement has been signed, and they in turn are reimbursed one-half of this amount from the provincial treasury.
Some of the highlights of the provincial hospitalization plan are worth emphasizing, and I should like to enumerate some of these points. Quoting from the same publication, they are:
1.	Hospitalization grants are paid to any municipality on condition that the local council enter into an agreement with an approved hospital to provide standard ward accommodation at $1 per day for their ratepayers.
2.	This deterrent charge ensures hospitalization to the people of Alberta at a price which the great majority can afford, while at the same time it guards against an excessive demand for hospitalization which usually accompanies so-called free hospitalization.
3.	The plan does not apply to maternity cases, pensioners, indigent patients or those coming under the Workmen's Compensation Act because hospitalization for these is provided under other legislation.
4.	All conditions requiring treatment in hospital are covered for as long as may be necessary.
5.	Pre-existing conditions are not excluded from hospital treatment.
6.	Admission to hospital for diagnostic services is covered under the plan.
7.	Patients referred to other hospitals by their local physicians and emergency admissions to other hospitals are provided for.
8.	Hospital taxes in the municipalities are based on real property values, thus apportioning the share of the municipality in an equitable manner.
9.	Administration of the provincial plan is left mainly with local authorities, and as a result hospitals are free from bureaucratic control.
It is thus that the province of Alberta is solving the problem of hospitalization for its residents. There is one other matter that I should like to deal with briefly. In looking over the estimates we find grants of various amounts for many worthy causes.
Supply-Health and Welfare I would suggest that the minister could take an additional step in the progress of health services by providing a grant to be used for further development and research in chiropractic. There is great need for chiropractic service in the armed forces. Under the government rehabilitation scheme veterans tuition and living expenses were paid for a considerable number of men who chose chiropractic as a career. It takes a considerable amount of money to finance a student through a four-year course. Since the government already has a considerable investment in the training of these men, and since the Canadian Legion has requested chiropractic service, it seems logical that this service should be made available to those members of the armed forces who desire such service.
The usual answer is that such services are already provided for the armed forces. When this statement is made the reference is to physiotherapy, massage, and so on. Physiotherapists have their place and are doing good work, but physiotherapy is not a part of chiropractic. Chiropractic is not a duplication of any other method of health service. It is definitely different and therefore does have something to offer which is not a duplication of the service rendered by any other type of health service. I want to make it abundantly clear that I am not trying to minimize the service rendered by medicine or any other branch of the healing profession. My point is that we are living in a day of specialization, and since chiropractic does have an exclusive approach in rendering health services I claim that we should make the fullest use of that service.
For example, if one has a broken arm one certainly would not go to see a dentist. If a patient has an inflamed appendix which is about ready to rupture it would be useless to go to see a chiropractor. By the same method of reasoning if a patient has a subluxated vertebra which is interfering with the normal flow of life energy to a particular organ or tissue of the body, it is also reasonable to say that all the drugs and tonics on the North American continent would not release that subluxation. To illustrate my point further, I should like to use some fundamental philosophy. There are only three things in the world. Those three things are intelligence, force and matter. If we consider the world and everything in it we will find that everything is composed of these three elements. Likewise we have three types of health services to correspond with the three elements of universe. If we were to take all the healing professions and list them we would find that they would come under the three headings
4442	HOUSE OF
Supply-Health and Welfare I have already mentioned. If we were to analyse health service according to the triune of life, intelligence, force and matter, under matter we would list the following: Medicine, physiotherapy, hydrotherapy, electrotherapy, massage, osteopathy and so on. To those who practise under this method the body is considered as matter. Disease in these branches, therefore, would be considered as matter, being either underactive or overactive. If when a patient came in his heart action was found to be very slow, that might be called bradycardia, and you would probably prescribe a drug that would increase that heart action. If on the other hand the heart action was found to be fast, that might be called tachycardia, and a drug would be given to reduce the activity. If the patient had an appendix which was inflamed to the point that there was danger of peritonitis or rupture, of course that part would have to be removed. I am not trying to condemn this method of procedure; I am merely trying to illustrate that they are dealing entirely with the body as so much matter. Another example would be someone having a rheumatic condition in his arm. You might prescribe massage, which would eventually move the toxins which might be causing that condition away from that location. That again would be dealing entirely with matter.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would it help the hon. gentleman in the elucidation of his thesis if he brought up the matter under the item dealing with epidemiology?


Hilliard Harris William Beyerstein: I will not be very long. Continuing my analysis of triune life under the second heading, which is intelligence, under this we would list Christian Science, psychiatry, psychology, psychosomatic medicine, and so on. Christian Science, of course, believes that you can control matter through mind. This may or may not be so; I am not prepared to argue the point this afternoon. As far as psychiatry, psychology and psychosomatic medicine are concerned, they are all doing very good work. They deal entirely with our educated mind, which is only a part of our innate mind. They are very necessary in our healing profession.
So far we have listed those healing arts which come under intelligence and matter. This leaves only one other heading, according to the triune of life; that would be force or energy. Under this heading we would find only one healing profession listed; that is chiropractic. That is the only healing profession which deals with the link between intelligence and matter. It may be argued that other branches of healing also deal with the transmission of energy from intelligence to matter. They say energy can


be stimulated by massage, by tonics and things of that kind, which is partly true. I might use the example of a small stream. If you operate a paddle in that stream naturally the water will run faster, but when you stop paddling the water will settle down to its normal flow again.
The first principle of chiropractic is that there is a universal intelligence which governs the universe and everything in it. It is this universal intelligence that keeps the earth from bumping into the moon, that makes the grass' grow green every year instead of blue one year and yellow the next year. We as human beings have an inborn intelligence which is part of this universal intelligence. It is this innate intelligence which makes our body live, which keeps our body temperature constant at 98-6 degrees without any effort on the part of our educated mind, that keeps our heart beating 72 times a minute whether we are awake or asleep. It is this innate intelligence which secretes the gastric juices when we smell a beefsteak and so on. It is this innate intelligence that makes the difference between a living body and dead body. If it were possible to take a dead body and a live body and put them in two test tubes and make an analysis, you would find they would both boil down to about 95 cents' worth of chemicals. Therefore the only difference between the two is this innate intelligence. This innate intelligence is the only difference between life and death. So to have 100 per cent health one must have 100 per cent intelligence, 100 per cent energy or force, and 100 per cent matter.
Innate intelligence operates through the brain, which generates energy and sends it down the spinal cord and out through the millions of nerves which radiate to every organ, gland and tissue in the body. Without these nerve impulses or energy which flow from the brain to the heart, the heart could not pump blood, glands could not function, muscles could not move. Nerve impulses are the life force that drives the intricate machinery of the human body. Interference with the flow of this life force means disease. Since energy flows from the brain through the nerves to the organs, glands, tissues and so on, the logical place to look for interference would be along the nerve lines. A quick glance at the nervous anatomy will show that the most likely place to find interference or subluxations would be as the nerve leaves the spinal column.
The chiropractor is trained to locate and remove these subluxations. That is done by means of such instruments as the neurocalo-meter, microdynameter, the X-ray and so on. To substantiate the claims I have made I would like to refer briefly to an analysis of

2,975 cases taken from the files of workmen's compensation bureaux. In making this survey the research committee was careful to include all back strains whether cared for by a chiropractor or by a doctor of medicine. The cases in the medical-hospitalized- category were by no means more serious than those handled by chiropractic without benefit of hospitalization. Only low back cases involving strains and sprains were included. Surgical cases, cases resulting from high level falls, crushing injuries, and the like were not included. Although only lower back cases were considered in the survey, it should be noted that chiropractic is not confined to this type of case. Indeed, many who have gone to the chiropractor because of a strain or sprain in the lower back have been relieved of other long-standing chronic conditions at the same time, many of which were considered incurable by other healing methods. In a survey made by the research committee among chiropractors in the field it was discovered that 34-5 per cent of those cases having chronic ailments had a history of some accident which was very probably responsible for the nerve pressure which was interfering with normal functions. These cases responded to chiropractic care as well as those with more acute conditions.
The figures included in this study were compiled from workmen's compensation files of Iowa (February, 1946, to February, 1948), Arkansas (1945 to 1948), and Kentucky (1940 to 1949). They should be especially noteworthy as far as industry is concerned, having been compiled from sources concerning themselves exclusively with industrial cases and, of course, completely impartial. In order to obtain these figures, research men were sent out to the capitals of the states investigated. They were given official permission to go through workmen's compensation files for the purpose of compiling the statistics forming the basis of this analysis.
This analysis was completed by members of the International Chiropractors Association. I should now like to give a break-down of the findings of that committee. The analysis is divided into four divisions. The first division is headed "Comparative Days Lost".
Perhaps most revealing is the comparison of the average number of days lost under the different types of care. Medical (non-hospitalized) with 22-2 days, and medical (hospitalized) with 36-6, are shown up in a most startling way by chiropractic with 14-1 days. Osteopathy strikes a balance between the two extremes with 19-2. Moreover, chiropractic outstrips the field in the percentage of cases which lost no time at all with 16-92 per cent, followed by osteopathy with 14-29 per cent, medical (non-hospitalized) with 12-50 per cent, and medical (hospitalized) 0 per cent. Conversely, only 7-09 per cent of the cases under chiropractic had to remain under care over 35 days, as compared with 10-99 per
Supply-Health and Welfare cent for osteopathy, 13-78 per cent under medical (non-hospitalized), and 28-80 per cent under medical (hospitalized).
The second division is "Average Cost of Professional Care Compared." The figures
are as follows:
Chiropractic	 $27.83
Osteopathic	  32.67
Medical (non-hospitalized)	 24.49
Medical hospitalized	(non-surgical)	 110.98
From this list it will be noticed that the cost of medical care was $3.34 lower than the cost of chiropractic care. It will be noticed, however, that there was greater time loss and greater compensation payments made in those cases.
The third division is "Average Cost of Workmen's Compensation Compared".


Paul Joseph James Martin: When we come to the item- and I have an insurance item-perhaps my hon. friend would find it convenient to deal with the matter then.


Hilliard Harris William Beyerstein: I shall be only another two or three minutes. I read from this publication:
The average compensation payment was $79.95 under medical (hospitalized), $44.77 under medical (non-hospitalized), $36.69 under osteopathic care, and only $25.39 under chiropractic.
It is obvious that the saving to the insurance carriers is something considerable in those cases.
The fourth break-down is "Wages Lost by Worker". The figures are as follows:
Chiropractic	 $62.14
Osteopathic	 73.83
Medical (non-hospitalized)	 83.70
Medical hospitalized	(non-surgical)	 151.68
This is an analysis made of cases taken from workmen's compensation files, as I have already mentioned. Only lower back conditions were considered in those cases. I could give some interesting facts concerning other conditions, but I will not do so at this time. This is what insurance companies have found:
Results in millions of cases, over the years, have reflected themselves in recognition of chiropractic as the leading non-drugless health service. Insurance companies, which must be run on a basis where results count, have recognized the advantages chiropractic offers. Not only do these companies find a wider market for their policies when provision is made for chiropractic, but because of the favourable cost ratio where chiropractic is utilized, the companies experience a lower loss ratio. This enables companies utilizing chiropractic to safely offer a lower premium rate and thereby enjoy a more favourable competitive position.
The minister is rather anxious to get on with his estimates. I would propose to read the names of some of these insurance companies. If he would like to save some time, however, perhaps he would allow me to hand this list to the Hansard reporter, and he could

Supply-Health and Welfare just include it in Hansard. I have here a list of insurance companies, and I will hand it to the Hansard reporter, if that is agreeable.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Does this bring this thesis to a conclusion? I shall be glad to agree to my hon. friend's proposal, on the understanding that my hon. friend has finished his important exposition.


Robert Fair: He has a right to be here. He does not take up much time. Chiropractic has helped a great many people. Give the hon. member a chance.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I know. I find what he has said to be useful.


Hilliard Harris William Beyerstein: The list to which I referred is as follows:
Class A-l-Specify Chiropractic service in their policies and pay claims of Chiropractors.
American Casualty Co. of Reading, Pa., Reading, Pa.
American Mutual Liability Insurance Co., Boston, Mass.
American Life & Accident Ins. Co. of Mo., St. Louis, Mo.
Atlas Mutual Life Insurance Co., Indianapolis, Ind. Auto-Owners Insurance Co., Lansing, Michigan American Benefit Association, Minneapolis, Minn. Central Life Ins. Co. of 111., Chicago, 111. Continental Assurance Co., Chicago, 111. Continental Casualty Co. of Hammond, Ind., Chicago, 111.
Coastal States Life Insurance Co., Atlanta, Ga. Combined Casualty Co., Des Moines, Iowa Employers Mutual Liability Ins. Co. of Wis., Wausau, Wis.
Great Southern Life Ins. Co. (Tex.), Houston, Texas
Golden State Mutual Life Ins. Co., Los Angeles, Cal.
Hardware Mutual Casualty Co., Stevens Point, Wis.
Illinois Mutual Casualty Co., Peoria, 111.
Interstate Assurance Co., Des Moines, Iowa Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., Boston, Mass. Michigan Mutual Liability Co., Detroit, Mich. Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Assn., Omaha, Neb.
Mutual Life Underwriters, Poland, S.D. Manufacturers & Merchants Indemnity Co., Cincinnati, Ohio
Olympic National Life Ins. Co., Seattle, Wash. S.D. Benevolent Society, Doland, S.D.
Travelers Health Association, Omaha, Nebr. United Benefit Life Ins. Co., Omaha, Nebr. Washington National Life Ins. Co., Evanston, 111. World Insurance Co., Omaha, Nebraska
Insurance Companies Meeting Class "A" Requirements 1949
Class "A"-Includes all companies who are known to approve chiropractic service for their policyholders, and who specify chiropractic as a part of their policies, but have not yet met all requirements to qualify them for the "A-l" listing.
Aetna Life Insurance Co., Hartford, Conn.
Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., Hartford, Conn. Allied Mutual Casualty Co.
Agricultural Life Ins. Co., of Am., Detroit, Mich. American Associated Ins. Co.
American Mutual Life Ins. Co., Des Moines, Iowa American Employers Insurance Co.
American National Insurance Co., Galveston, Tex. 
American Insurance Co. of Texas American Health Insurance Corp., Baltimore, Md. American Farmers Ins. Co.
American Automobile Insurance Co., St. Louis, Mo. American Fidelity & Casualty Co., Inc., Richmond, Va.
American Motorists Insurance Co. of N.J. American Guarantee & Liability Ins. Co. of N.Y., Chicago, 111.
American Policy Holders Ins. Co., Boston, Mass. American States Ins. Co., Indianapolis, Ind. American Surety Co. of New York, New York, N.Y. American Travelers Association, Indianapolis, Ind. American Life & Accident Ins. Co. of Ky., Louisville, Ky.
Allstate Insurance Co., Chicago, 111.
Anchor Casualty Co.
Associated Indemnity Corp., San Francisco, Cal. Atlantic Life Ins. Co., Richmond, Va.
Acacia Mutual Life Ins. Co., Washington, D.C. Alliance Casualty Co., Philadelphia, Pa. Automobile Casualty Insurance Co., Los Angeles, Cal.
Bankers Indemnity Ins. Co., Newark, N.J. Bankers Life & Casualty Co., Chicago, 111. Bankers National Life Ins. Co., Montclair, N.J. Benefit Association of Railway Employees, Chicago, HI.
Business Men's Assurance Co. of Am., Kansas City, Mo.
Bankers Union Life Ins. Co., Denver, Colo. Babcock Co., A. H., Agents, Loraine, Ohio Banker's Casualty Co., Minneapolis, Minn.
Bankers Health & Accident Co., Houston, Texas Beneficial Casualty Ins. Co., Los Angeles, Calif. Bituminous Casualty Corp., Rock Island, 111. Brotherhood Accident Co., Boston, Mass. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, U.S.A. Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen, U.S.A. Buckeye Mutual Accident Assn., Toledo, O. Business Men's Insurance Co., Greensboro, N.C. Business Men's Accident Assn, of Am., Philadelphia, Pa.
Business Men's Protective Assn., Des Moines, Iowa
California Casualty Industrial Exchange Catholic Central Casualty Ins., Omaha 2, Nebraska Central Life Assurance Society, Des Moines, Iowa Central Surety & Insurance Corp.
Celina Mutual Casualty Co., Celina, Kans.
Coal Operators Casualty
Columbian National Life Ins. Co., Boston Mass. Colonial Life & Accident Columbia Casualty Co., New York, N.Y. Combined Mutual
Columbus Mutual Life Ins. Co., Columbus, Ohio Combined Insurance Co., of America, Chicago, 111. Commercial Casualty Ins. Co., Newark, N.J. Commercial Standard Ins. Co., of Fort Worth, Texas
Connecticut Indemnity Co., New Haven, Conn. Country Mutual Casualty Co.
Connecticut General Life Ins. Co., Hartford, Conn. Country Life Insurance Co., Chicago, 111.
Checker Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., Detroit, Mich. Citizens Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., Howell, Mich. Century Indemnity Co., Hartford, Conn. Consolidated Casualty Ins. Co., Houston, Texas Canadian Order of Woodmen of World, London, Ont.
Car & General Ins. Corp. Ltd., London, England Catholic Knights of St. George, Pittsburgh, Pa. Catholic Ladies of Columbia, Columbus, Ohio Colorado Life Ins. Co., Denver, Colo.
Commercial Accident Co., Springfield, 111. Commercial General Ins. Co., Hartford, Conn. Commercial Travelers Mut. Accident of Am., Utica, N.Y.
Commercial Mutual Ins. Co., Cincinnati, Ohio Cheese Makers Mut. Casualty Co., Madison, Wis. Chicago Ice Producers Mutual Liability Co., Chicago, 111.



2L 1951

[Stage Direction]
Continental Casualty Co., Toronto, Ont., Can. Croatian Fraternal Union, Pittsburgh, Pa.
Cloverleaf Life & Casualty Co., Jacksonville, 111. Detroit Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., Detroit, Mich. Danes' Brotherhood Camp No. 139, Viborg, N.D. Duluth Casualty Co., Duluth, Minn.
Dearborn National Casualty Co., Detroit 26, Mich. Detroit Mutual Ins. Co., Detroit 2, Mich.
Detroit Mutual Accident Ins. Co., Detroit 2, Mich. Detroit Automobile Inter-Insurance Exchange, Detroit 26, Mich.
Eagle Indemnity Co., New York, N.Y.
Employers Liability Assurance Co.
Empire Life & Accident Co., Indianapolis, Ind. Employers Reinsurance Corp., Kansas City, Mo. Emmco Casualty Ins. Co., South Bend, Ind. Employers Liability Assurance Corp., Ltd., London, Eng.
Eureka Casualty Co., Philadelphia, Pa.
Eastern Mutual Ins. Co., Boston, Mass.
Employers Mutual Casualty Co., Des Moines, Iowa Employers Mutual Ins. Co., Denver, Colo.
Electrical Workers Benefit Assn., Washington, D.C. Equitable Life Assurance Society of U.S., New York 28
Equity Mutual Ins. Co., Kansas City, Mo.
Exchange Mutual Indemnity Ins. Co., Buffalo, N.Y. Erie Indemnity Co., Erie, Pa.
Empire Mutual Ins. Co., Denver, Colo.
Farmers Insurance Group Factory Mutual Liability Ins. Co. of Amer., Providence, R.I.
Farmers Elevator Mutual Casualty Co.
Fidelity & Casualty Co. of N.Y., New York, N.Y. Fidelity Health Assoc., Vancouver, B.C.
Federal Life & Casualty Co., Detroit, Mich. Federated Mutual Implement & Hardware Insurance Co., Owatoma, Minn.
Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Md., Baltimore, Md. Fidelity Health & Accident Co., Benton Harbor, Mich.
Firemen's Fund Indemnity Co., San Francisco, Calif.
Frankenmuth Mutual Auto Ins. Co., Frankenmuth, Mich.
Furniture Mutual Ins. Co., Grand Rapids, Mich. Freeport Motor Casualty Co., Freeport, 111.
Farm Bureau Mutual Auto Ins. Co., Columbus, Ohio
Farmers Mutual Auto Ins. Co., Madison, Wis. Farmers Mutual Hail Ins. Co., Des Moines, Iowa Farmers Union Mutual Auto Ins. Co., Des Moines, Iowa
Federal Mutual Liability Ins. Co., Boston, Mass. Federal Surety Co., Davenport, Iowa Fidelity & Casualty Co., Dallas, Texas Fidelity & Casualty Co., Newark, N.J.
Fort Wayne Mercantile Accident Assn., Fort Wayne, Ind.
Founders Mutual Casualty Co., Chicago, 111. General Accident & Liability Co.
General American Life Ins. Co., St. Louis, Mo. General Reinsurance Corporation, New York, N.Y. George Washington Life Ins. Co., Charleston,
W., Va.
Glens Falls Indemnity Co., Glens Falls, N.Y. Globe Indemnity Co., New York, N.Y.
Great Northern Life Ins. Co. (Wis.), Milwaukee, Wis. & Chicago
Great Lakes Casualty Co., Detroit, Mich.
Great American Indemnity Co., New York, N.Y. Greek Catholic Union of Russian Brotherhoods of U.S.A., Munhall, Pa.
Guarantee Reserve Life Ins. Co., Fort Collins, Colo. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., New York, N.Y. General Accident Ins. Co., Philadelphia, Pa. General Accident, Fire & Life Assur. Corp. Ltd., Perth, Scotland
General Casualty Co., Madison, Wis.
General Casualty Co. of Am., Seattle, Wash.
Supply-Health and Welfare General Transportation Cas. & Surety Co., New York, N.Y.
Guarantee Insurance Co., Los Angeles, Calif. Guarantee & Indemnity Ins. Co., Wilmington, Del. Globe Mutual Ins. Co., Kansas City, Mo.
Goodville Mutual Casualty Co., Goodville, Pa. General Indemnity Exchange, St. Louis, Mo. George Washington Insurance Co., Des Moines, Iowa
Georgia Casualty Co., Macon, Ga.
German-Austrian Benevolent Assn., St. Louis, Mo. Globe Indemnity Co., Kansas City, Mo.
Gopher Mutual Casualty Co., Duluth, Minn. Guarantee Indemnity Co., Indianapolis, Ind.
Globe Casualty Co., Columbus, Ohio George Rogers Clark Casualty Co., Rockford, 111. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., Hartford, Conn.
Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection & Ins. Co., Hartford, Conn.
Hawkeye Casualty Co., Des Moines, Iowa Home Indemnity Co., New York, N.Y.
Home Security Life Ins. Co., Durham, N.C.
Hoosier Casualty Co, Indianapolis, Ind.
Home Accident & Health Ins. Co., South Bend, Ind. Harleysville Mutual Casualty Co., Harleysville, Pa. Home Mutual Casualty Co., Appleton, Wis.
Hudson Mohawk Mutual Ins. Co., Albany, N.Y. Highway Insurance Underwriters, Austin, Texas Hardware Indemnity Ins. Co. of Minn., Minneapolis, Minn.
Highway Mutual Casualty Co., Chicago, 111. Illinois Commercial Men's Assn., Chicago 90, 111. Illinois Bankers Life Ins. Co., Monmouth, 111. Imperial Life Ins. Co., Asheville, N.C.
Income Guaranty Co., South Bend, Ind.
Indemnity Ins. Co. of North Am., Philadelphia, Pa. Inter-Ocean Casualty Co. (Ind.), Cincinnati, Ohio Interstate Business Men's Accident Co.,
Des Moines 7, Iowa
Illinois Commercial News Assn., Chicago, 111. Illinois Traveling Men's Health Assn., Chicago, HI. Independent Order of Odd Fellows, U.S.A.
Iowa Adjustment Co.
Industrial Commission, Ohio Iowa Farm Mutual Ins. Co.
Iowa Mutual Liability Ins. Co., Cedar Rapids, Iowa Industrial Indemnity Co., San Francisco, Cal. Interboro Mutual Indemnity Co., New York, N.Y. Iowa High School Insurance Co.
Iowa Mutual Casualty Co., De Witt, Iowa Industrial Indemnity Exchange, San Francisco, Calif.
Independent Insurance Co., Louisville, Ky. Indianapolis Life Ins. Co., Indianapolis, Ind. Jefferson National Life Ins. Co., Indianapolis, Ind. John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co., Boston, Mass. Kralee Insurance Service, Chicago, 111.
Kansas City Casualty Co., Denver, Colo.
Keystone Auto Club Casualty Co., Philadelphia, Pa. Knights of Pythias, U.S.A.
Keystone Mutual Casualty Co., Pittsburgh, Pa. Limited Mutual Compensation Ins. Co.
(Formerly California Comp. Ins. Co)
Lincoln Mutual Casualty Co., Detroit, Mich. Locomotive Engineers & Conductors Mut. protective Assn., Detroit, Mich.
London & Lancashire Indemnity Co. of Am. (N.Y.), Hartford, Conn.
Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Co., Chicago, 111. Loyal Protective Life Ins. Co., Boston, Mass. London Life Ins. Co., London, Ont.
Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., Charlotte, N.C.
London Guarantee & Accident Co, Ltd., New York and London, Eng.
Liberty Lloyds, Fort Worth, Texas Lloyds Guarantee Assurance Co., Dallas, Tex. Lansing Employers' Underwriters, Lansing, Michigan
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Health and Welfare Maccabees, Great Camp for Michigan, Detroit, Mich.
Manufacturers Casualty Ins. Co., Philadelphia, Pa. Maryland Casualty Co., Baltimore, Md. Massachusetts Indemnity Ins. Co., Boston, Mass. Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. Co., Boston, Mass. Massachusetts Protective Assn., Inc., Worcester, Mass.
Metals Mutual Ins. Co., Grand Rapids, Mich. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., New York, N.Y. Metropolitan Casualty Ins Co. of N.Y., Newark, N.J. Michigan Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., Traverse City, Mich.
Michigan Mutual Liability Ins. Co., Detroit, Mich. Michigan Casualty Co., Detroit, Mich.
Michigan Hospital Benefit Assn., Detroit, Mich. Michigan Life Insurance Co.
Michigan Surety Company, Lansing, Mich.
Midland National Life Ins. Co., Watertown, S.D. Mid-America Ins. Co., Detroit, Mich.
Monarch Life Ins. Co., Springfield, Mass.
Modern Woodmen of America, Rock Island, 111. Modern Romans, Manistee, Mich.
Mountain States Mutual Insurance Co.
Masonic Protective Assn., Worcester, Mass.
Mutual Creamery Liability Ins. Co.
Mutual Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., New York, N.Y Mutual Savings Life Ins. Co., St. Louis, Mo. Maccabees, The, New York, N.Y.
Maccabees, Great Camp of Ohio Manufacturers Liability Ins. Co., Jersey City, N.J. Maine Bonding & Casualty Co., Portland, Me. Madison Co. Mutual Auto Ins. Co., Edwardsville, 111.
Massachusetts Protective Life Assur. Co., Worcester, Mass.
Merchants Casualty Co., Winnipeg, Can.
Merchants Life & Casualty Co., Minneapolis, Minn. Merchants Mutual Casualty Co., Buffalo, N.Y. Michigan State Accident Fund, Lansing, Michigan Minnesota Farmers Mut. Cas. Ins. Co., Minneapolis, Minn.
Minnesota Commercial Men's Assn., Minneapolis, Minn.
Minnesota Casualty Men's Assn., Minneapolis, Minn. Missouri Casualty Co., Clayton, Mo.
Motorist's Protective Assn., New York City, N.Y. Motor Carriers Mutual Ins. Assn., Des Moines, Iowa Mutual Protective Ins. Co., Kansas City, Mo. Mutual Casualty Ins. Co., New York, N.Y.
National Life & Accident Ins. Co., Nashville, Tenn. National Masonic Provident Assn., Mansfield, Ohio National Life Benefit Co., Houston, Texas National Casualty Co., Detroit, Mich.
National Accident & Health Ins. Co., Philadelphia, Pa.
New Amsterdam Casualty Co. N.Y., Baltimore, Md. New England Mutual Life Ins. Co., Boston, Mass. New York Casualty Co., New York 5, N.Y. * North American Accident Ins. Co., Chicago, 111. North American Union Life Assur. Soc., Chicago, 111.
Northern Life Ins. Co., Seattle, Wash.
Norwich Union Indemnity Co., New York, N.Y. National Mutual Casualty Co., Detroit, Mich. National Automobile Assn.
National Accident Ins. Co., Lincoln, Nebr. National Benefit Insurance Co. of Des Moines National Casualty Co., Indianapolis, Ind.
National Protective Ins. Co., Kansas City, Mo. National Travellers Benefit Assn., Des Moines, Iowa National Travelers Casualty Co., Des Moines, Iowa New England Casualty Co., Boston, Mass.
New Jersey Mfgrs. Casualty Ins. Co.
Norodna Hrvatske Zajednica, Pittsburgh, Fa. Northwestern Life & Accident Ins. Co., Seattle, Wash.
Northern Mutual Casualty Co., Chicago, 111.
New England Casualty Co., Springfield, Mass.

Northwest Casualty Co., Seattle, Wash.
National Mutual Casualty Co., Tulsa, Okia. National Indemnity Exchange, St. Louis, Mo. National Lloyds, Baltimore, Md.
New York Printers & Book Binders Mut. Ins. Co., New York, N.Y.
Occidental Life Ins. Co. of N.C., Raleigh, N.C. Occidental Life Ins. Co. Los Angeles, Cal.
Ohio Casualty Ins. Co., Hamilton, Ohio Ocean Accident & Guarantee Corp. Ltd.,
New York 16, N.Y.
Occidental Indemnity Co., San Francisco, Cal. Old Line Accident Ins. Co., Lincoln, Nebr.
Old American Ins. Co., Kansas City, Mo.
Order of Railway Conductors, U.S.A.
Order of Red Men, Georgetown, 111.
Order of United Commercial Travelers, Columbus 8, Ohio
Order of Railway Employees, San Francisco, Cal. Pacific Employers Insurance Co.
Pacific Mutual Life Ins. Co., Los Angeles, Cal. Paul Revere Life Ins. Co., Worcester, Mass.
Penn Mutual Life Ins. Co., Philadelphia, Pa. Pennsylvania Casualty Co., Lancaster, Pa. Peerless Casualty Co., Keene, N.H.
Permanent Firemen's Insurance Assn.
Phoenix Indemnity Co., New York, N.Y.
Phoenix Mutual Life Ins. Co., Hartford, Conn. Preferred Automobile Ins. Co., Grand Rapids, Mich.
Preferred Accident Ins. Co. of N.Y., New York, N.Y.
Palmetto State Life Ins. Co., Columbia, S.C. Penninsular Life Ins. Co., Jacksonville, Fla.
Police & Firemans of Indianapolis, Indiana Policyholders National Life Ins. Co., Sioux Falls, S.D.
Protective Life Ins. Co., North Birmingham, Ala. Protective Indemnity Co., New York, N.Y. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co. of Chat. Tenn., Chattanooga, Tenn.
Prudential
Public Service Life H. & A. Ins. Co., Seattle, Wash. Pa. Threshermen's & Farmer Mut. Cas. Ins. Co., Harrisburg, Pa.
Pacific Automobile Ins. Co., Los Angeles, Cal. Pennsylvania Mfrs. Assn. Casualty Ins. Co., Philadelphia, Pa.
People's Mutual Life Ins. Co., San Francisco, Cal. Pioneer National Casualty Co., Des Moines, Iowa Policyholders Mutual Casualty Co., Des Moines, Iowa
Potomac Indemnity Co., Philadelphia, Pa. Progressive Mutual Ins. Co., Cleveland, Ohio Protective Association of Canada, Granby, Que. Provident Accident & White Cross Ins. Co. Ltd., New York, N.Y.
Pullman Company, U.S.
Public Mutual Casualty Co., St. Louis, Mo. Puritan Casualty Co.
Railway Employers Mutual Benefit Ins. Co. Reliable Life Ins. Co., St. Louis, Mo.
Reliance Life Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pa. Reserve Loan Life of Texas, Dallas, Texas Rockford Life Ins. Co., Rockford, 111.
Royal Indemnity Co., New York, N.Y.
Reserve Life Ins. Co., Dallas, Texas Republic Mutual Ins. Co., Columbus, Ohio Ridgeley Protective Association, Worcester, Mass. *R. I. Mutual Liability Ins. Co., Providence, R.I. Richmond Beneficial Ins. Co. (Colored), Richmond, Va.
Royal Neighbors of America, Rock Island, 111. Security Life & Accident Ins. Co., Denver, Colo. Security Life & Trust Co., Winston-Salem, N.C. Service Life Ins. Co., Omaha, Nebr.
Security Mutual Casualty Co., Chicago, 111. Standard Surety & Casualty Co. of N.Y., New York, N.Y.
State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., Bloomington, 111.

Sentinel Life Insurance Co., Kansas City, Mo. Security Benefit Ass'n., Topeka, Kans.
Selected Risks Indemnity Co., Branchville, N.J. Seaboard Mutual Casualty Co., Philadelphia, Pa. 'Service Mutual Ins. of Texas Societee Des Artisans Ins. Co. (French Can.), Montreal, Que, Can.
Southern Casualty Co., Alexandria, La.
Southern Surety Co., Des Moines, Iowa S.D. Employers Protective Assn., Sioux Falls, S.D. 'State Automobile Mutual Insurance Co., Ohio State Industrial Commission of Ohio State Workmen's Insurance Fund of Pa.,
Harrisburg, Pa.
'State Auto Insurance Assn., Des Moines, Iowa State Mutual Benefit Society, Philadelphia, Pa. Standard Mutual Casualty Co., Springfield, 111. 'Sterling Insurance Co., Chicago, 111.
'Standard Accident Ins. Co., Detroit, Mich. Southern Life Ins. Co., Baltimore, Md.
Southern National Ins. Co., Little Rock, Ark Sun Life Insurance Co., Los Angeles, Cal.
Sunset Casualty Co. of America, Olympia, Wash. Summit Fidelity & Surety Co., Akron, Ohio Superior Lloyds of America, Dallas, Texas Supreme Casualty Co., Milwaukee, Wis.
'St. Paul-Mercury Indemnity Co. of St. Paul, St. Paul, Minn.
Suburban Casualty Co., Wheaton, 111.
Safety Casualty Co., Dallas, Texas Service Casualty Co. of N.Y., New York 16, N.Y. 'Texas Employers Ins. Co.
Time Insurance Co., Milwaukee, Wis.
'Transport Insurance Exchange [DOT]Travelers Ins. Co., Hartford, Conn.
Travelers Indemnity Co., Hartford, Conn. [DOT]Travelers Protective Assn, of America, St. Louis, Mo.
Travelers Title & Trust Co.
Transit Casualty Co., St. Louis, Mo.
*Tri State Casualty Ins. Co.
Twentieth Century Mutual Ins. Co., Detroit, Mich. The Gem City Life Ins. Co., Dayton, Ohio Travelers Protective Association, Kokomo, Ind. Title Guaranty & Casualty Co. of America, Detroit, Mich.
Texas Indemnity Ins. Co., Galveston, Tex.
Transit Mutual Ins. Co., Boston, Mass.
Union Ins. Co.
United Insurance Co., Chicago, 111.
United Assn, of Journeymen & Steam Fitters, U.S. & Canada
United States Casualty Co., New York, N.Y. [DOT]United Pacific Insurance Co.
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., Baltimore 3, Md.
United States Guarantee Co., New York, N.Y. United Casualty Co., Westfield, Mass.
United Commercial Travelers Assn., Utica, N.Y. United Mine Workers of America, U.S.
U.S. Letter Carriers Assn., Lancaster, Pa.
U.S. Mutual Liability Ins. Co., Quincy, Mass. Underwriters at Lloyds, London, Frankfort, Ky. [DOT]Utica Mutual Insurance Co., Utica, N.Y.
Utilities Insurance Co., St. Louis, Mo.
United Insurance Co., Lincoln, Nebr.
Western Reserve Life Ins. Co., Austin, Tex. [DOT]Wisconsin National Life Ins. Co., Oshkosh, Wis. Woodmen Central Assurance Co., Lincoln, Nebr. Wolverine Ins. Co. Lansing, Mich.
Wolverine Mutual Ins. Co., Dowagiac, Mich. [DOT]Western Casualty & Surety Co., Ft. Scott, Kans. Western Surety Co., Sioux Falls, S.D.
Woodmen Accident Co., Lincoln, Nebr.
Western Union Mutual Ins. Co., Detroit 1, Mich. Women's Benefit Association, Port Huron, Mich. Woodmen Circle, Supreme Forest, Omaha, Nebr. Woodmen of The World Life Ins. Soc., Omaha 2, Nebr.
Supply-Health and Welfare War Risk Insurance Bureau of the Treasury Dept. Wash., D.C.
Western Reserve Mut. Casualty Co., Wooster, Ohio Western States Mut. Auto Lins. Co., Freeport, 111. [DOT]Whitecross Plan
Wisconsin Casualty Co., Green Bay. Wis.
Wisconsin Brotherhood of Threshermen Ins. Co., Fond du Lac, Wis.
World Marine General Ins. Co. (Canada)
World Mutual H. & A. Ins. Co. of Penna., Philadelphia, Pa.
Western Travelers Accident Assn, of Cal.,
Los Angeles, Cal.
Zurich General Accident & Liab. Ins. Co. Ltd., Zurich, Switzerland
Indicates companies whose statistics have been utilized in compiling this brochure.
I also have here a list showing the major industries and governmental agencies to whom chiropractic claims were paid by insurance carriers. If I have permission to do so, I could probably include that list on Hansard.
Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hilliard Harris William Beyerstein: If I have permission to do that, I will conclude my remarks by urging the minister to take these statistics into consideration especially in providing grants for further study along these lines; also, in the case of a national health plan being advocated, I would urge on the minister that the people should have the benefit of chiropractic services under any such health plan.
The list referred to is as follows:
Chiropractic claims in this survey were paid by insurance carriers of the following major industries and governmental agencies:
American Excelsior Company
American Stones Company
American Vitrified Products Company
Anglo-California National Bank
Arapahoe County Colorado
Armco Steel Corporation
Bank of America
Bell Telephone Company
B. F. Goodrich Rubber Company
Boeing Aircraft
Bettendorf, Iowa, City of
Burlington, Iowa, City of
California Institute of Technology
Calivala Elementary School, Fresno, California
Case Company, J. I.
Columbia County, Ohio Canada Dry
Canadian National Railroad Chester, South Carolina, City of Concord, New Hampshire, City of Coca Cola
Curtiss Candy Company Colorado Highway Department Daval Rubber Company Dade County, Florida Derrick Publishing Company Detroit Edison Company Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, City of El Rio Oils, Lmt. Canada First National Stones Falls City Brewery Firestone Rubber Company Florida Greyhound Lines Ford Motor Company Fort Dodge, Iowa, City of

Supply-Health and Welfare First National Bank of Pasadena, California Fairbanks Morse Company Golden Grain Cereal Company General Iron Works General Motors Green County, Iowa General Baking Company Grant Stores, W. T.
Gulf Mobile and Ohio Railway Company
General American Transportation Company
Iowa Highway Commission
Inland Paper Board Company
Linn, Kansas, City of
Libby Owen Ford Glass Company
Lisbon, Ohio, City of
Logan County, Ohio
Malleable Steel Range
Moline Iron Works
Manchester Knitting Mills
Minnesota Valley Canning Company
Montana Phosphates Products Company
Mid-Continent Airlines, Inc.
Minnesota Highway Department N.Y., N.H. and Hartford Railroad Nunn-Bush Shoe Company New York Central Railroad National Biscuit Company Nutrina Mills Inc.
Oswego, Oregon, City of Pacific Press, Inc.
Parker Pen Company
Pantex Ordinance Plant, Amarillo, Texas
Penny Company, J. C.
Pacific Car & Foundry Pepsi Cola Bottling Company Reo Motors
Rath Packing Company Reynolds Metals Rock Island Railroad Shell Oil Company Salt Lake, Utah, County of School Board, Ottumwa, Iowa Snap-On-Tools Corporation Solar Aircraft Corporation Santa Ana, California, City of Shreveport, Louisiana, City of Sierra-Pacific Power Company
Seneca Ordinance Depot, Seneca Falls, New York Standard Oil Company of California Safeway Stores, Inc.
Sinclair Prairie Oil Company Studebaker Corporation Swift and Company Stagg Beer Company Skagg Super Markets Susquehanna Chemical Corporation Thom McAnn Shoe Stores Utah Packing Company U.S. Government (296)
U.S. Army Ordinance Depot
U.S. Bureau of Mines
United Electric Railroad Company
United Engineers of Construction Company, Inc.
U.S. Oil Company
United Gas Company
Victor Animatograph Corporation
Venetian Hotel, Miami, Florida
Western Grocers
Western Auto Stores
Westinghouse
Windsor, Connecticut, City of Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc.


Mr. McMillan:: Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate those who have taken part in this debate, and more particularly my good friend the hon. member for Lanark for his well-known interest in the sick and the afflicted. I will not deal with the physiology Mr. Beyerstein.]
of life or try to tell why we click. I did not know before that my medical confreres were so inefficient.
This is only the second time that I have chosen to enter the debate since moving the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Many subjects have been before hon. members to which I might have made some contribution, but I preferred to leave it to the experts. I do not pretend to be an expert on health measures, but by reason of practising medicine and surgery for thirty years, I think I may reasonably be expected to know something of what goes on in the health department.
I would suggest, first of all, that the department of health might well start at home and give members of this house some lessons in health measures. We all become prisoners to a system whereby we are pent up in this house from nine o'clock or ten o'clock in the morning until eleven o'clock at night. We should all have some leisure time in the evening for reading and for preparing work for the following day. I think it was the hon. member for Peel who said that the hours were inhuman. Certainly our system is not compatible with any rules of health with which I am familiar. We all should commend the Prime Minister, the Leader of the official Opposition and the leaders of the other opposition groups in their agreement to find ways and means in future to expedite the work in this House of Commons. I should also like to commend Mr. Speaker for his interest in the need for improvement of the acoustics of this chamber. Since I have been here many a good speech has been dissipated into the upper realms of space as you could not hear it. That is because our voices lack the volume and the quality necessary in a chamber of this size. The spoken word certainly leaves a more lasting impression; and when this work is finished, the use of Hansard in this house at least should be relegated to those who are engaged in research in the realm of words in order to harass and to embarrass their authors.
I should like to commend the minister and the personnel of his department for the fine work they are doing for the people of Canada generally. To my mind health matters transcend party politics, as well they should. Our only differences should be in the amount and degree of health services provided. A critical scrutiny of the estimates should always be welcome so that we can get the most for the health dollar. I will not attempt to enumerate or describe the recent advances in medicine and surgery-I think the hon. member for Lanark described some of these.
I will say, however, that many of the effective

new drugs are very expensive and add greatly to the cost of medical care. I would think that the main purpose of the health department should be to see that these new scientific discoveries and treatments are made available to all our people, and to help maintain our health standards at a high level.
In moving the address in reply to the speech from the throne, I referred to the interest I had in the national health program announced in May, 1948. At that time I enumerated some of the main features. The various federal and provincial surveys now being conducted, to my mind, will supply some of the information necessary to evolve a national health scheme of contributory health insurance.
In talking about such a scheme I fully realize that the inauguration and payment of universal old age pensions to those 70 and over, and 50 per cent to those between 65 and 70 will be inflationary, and will have a very considerable impact on our economy.
I realize also that health matters, and certainly, more particularly those that apply to patients treated in our general hospitals in the provinces, are under provincial jurisdiction.
I want to thank the Prime Minister for the compliment he paid to my profession here yesterday. I think the medical profession in Canada realizes its responsibilities fully. According to the members of their executive they want to give our people the best possible prepaid medical care. The trans-Canada medical services is really a consolidation of the seven provincial medical services already in existence. They state that they believe they can provide a better and more economical service than can be done by the government when it is government run. I believe this to be the case, because I know that the medical associations have been studying medical economics for some time.
I hear some criticism of the scheme because it is being run by doctors. Some people also say that doctors are poor businessmen. That may be so, but I think they can run a good scheme. I think the system should be on the fee-for-service basis, for we want to maintain the basic freedoms and a high standard of medical services in Canada. In any event, I think it should be studied, and I am certainly in favour of the most economical system. The trouble with the scheme at the present time is that the membership is limited. You can become a member only if you belong to a group. Self-employed persons and individuals cannot join. I feel that these details will be corrected in time.
This scheme is much more ambitious than the one I had the temerity to propose last 80709-283j
Supply-Health and Welfare January. I talked about a contributory plan for the major medical expenses. This plan is much more inclusive and should receive the study of all members of this government, because expenses incidental to sickness are the last major element left in the feeling of insecurity of our people.
In suggesting some type of contributory health insurance in January I had in mind that many schemes were in force, but they all had some drawbacks, and I will give these quickly, and that will be all.
(1)	For the most part they are sold to groups, and as such are not easily available to a large majority of our people.
(2)	Most of them have limitations as to the amount of benefits and the length of time they may be received.


Mr. Benidickson:: The age of sickness.


William Hector McMillan: Yes.
(3)	They do not present a true picture of the cost of medical services, because those admitted are reasonably healthy, since they are engaged in production.
(4)	Many schemes terminate at the time of, or soon after, the termination of employment. I think this is important.
(5)	There is no uniformity of coverage. This can militate against the labouring man. I have known men to remain in one place of employment instead of taking more preferable employment because of the better medical and hospital coverage where they are.
(6)	I have been told by employers, for instance, that they would not hire men over 50, and prefer not to hire men older than 40, because of the higher premium for medical and insurance coverage necessary for a higher average age group. I am convinced that we should encourage the employment of the older age group. Most people are much happier and healthier when they are employed. Discontent, sickness and misery are often early manifestations of the idleness of retirement. We would be making a fatal mistake to have all our taxation fall on too narrow or contracted an age group of our people. It would bog down our economy. We should rather always try to broaden that age base for a better economy and for happier Canadians.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
267. Administration of the Food and Drugs Act, $815,446.
Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister will recall
that earlier in this session I asked him questions about brown bread. My questions were based on news reports to the effect
4450	HOUSE OF
Supply-Health and Welfare that a nutritionist in Montreal had made a statement that a good deal of the brown bread being sold was really white bread dyed brown. When we got to discussing the matter, partly through questions on the orders of the day, and I believe at one time on supplementary estimates, I made it clear that the use of the word "dyed" did not imply that any unhealthy elements were being put into bread, but rather that purchasers of bread were being deceived. The deception lies in the fact that most people who buy brown bread think they are getting whole wheat bread. I understand that when a loaf of brown bread is wrapped, if it is labelled "Canada approved" it has to have a certain content of whole wheat flour. But if the loaf of brown bread is not so labelled there are no provisions in the Food and Drugs Act requiring that there be any particular content of whole wheat flour.
On one of the occasions when this matter was under discussion the minister was good enough to let me know that the matter was being considered. I took it from what he said that consideration was being given to the question of whether or not the regulations under the Food and Drugs Act could be revised to take care of this matter. Can he tell me whether-


Paul Joseph James Martin: I can tell the hon. member
right away.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -consideration has been
given to the matter and whether there has been any result.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I need not spend much time
on this since my hon. friend has said everything that needs to be said about it. We have given consideration to revision of the Food and Drugs Act, and as I told him at the time, I hoped that it would be possible to deal with that matter, but I could not give any guarantee. The bill is completed and would be ready for introduction but for two features that we are discussing with the trade and with certain of our scientific consultants. This particular matter is one of those. It is not an easy one. In the fall I would be in a position to bring in amendments to the Food and Drugs Act, and we will see at that time whether it contains this provision or not. That will depend upon discussions still taking place.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
269.	Administration of the Opium and Narcotic Drugs Act, $159,914.
William Gourlay Blair: I see there is an increase in
the amount of money to be spent in the administration of the act.


Paul Joseph James Martin: A decrease of about $10,000.


William Gourlay Blair: In view of disturbing reports
in the press about addiction to narcotics among children in the United States, particularly New York, will the minister make a statement as to whether anything like this is happening in Canada, or has it come to the attention of the Department of National Health and Welfare that addiction is growing in this country?


Paul Joseph James Martin: We have been watching for
it. We have no indication that it is true in our country, but we are certainly not relaxing our supervision in that particular matter.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Indians and Eskimos health services-*
270.	Operation and maintenance, $9,875,630.
Mr. Bryce:: What progress is being made in connection with the hospital at Norway House? Although it is not in my constituency, I am interested in it. How many new hospital stations have been built in the north country since the last estimates were before us?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I know the hon. member knows a good deal about Norway House. We have an item of $500,000 in the estimates for the construction of a fifty-bed hospital at Norway House. The hon. member may be assured, as I have assured him privately, that we are anxious to see the construction there as quickly as possible. The hospital at that point is very old, and we would have replaced it earlier but for the fact that our program of hospital construction envisaged building new units in places where there were no units at all. We have reached the point now where we have met that aspect of our program and, as I have indicated, we are now able to give attention to such things as Norway House.
The hon. member has asked for a general picture of the progress made. As he knows, in addition to our 18 hospitals-those at Qu'Appelle, at Nanaimo, at Coqualeetza and the Charles Camsell hospital are the major ones-we have 29 nursing stations and 49 health centres. We are making a real inroad into this problem of Indian health, one of which the people of Canada have every reason to be proud. This is largely due to the fact that we have been able to hospitalize t.b. patients among Indians, whose incidence of tuberculosis is so high.
As an indication of this perhaps it would be well if I were to place on record a brief statistical review with respect to the tuberculosis death rate in our country. This death rate has dropped 31 per cent in four years. For each one hundred thousand of population

the Indian t.b. rate in 1946 was 579-1; in 1947,549-8; 1948, 480-1; and 1949, the last year for which the figures are available, 399-6. This shows the tremendous reduction in the incidence of this disease, and this reduction is largely attributable to the increase of hospital service being provided from one end of the country to the other.
Among the white population the incidence of deaths from t.b. per one hundred thousand population was: in 1946, 41-9; 1947, 38-2; 1948, 32-4; and 1949, 26-7. The hon. member will see that the reduction in the t.b. rate among Indians is not as great as among the white population. That is due largely to the fact that the campaign against tuberculosis among the white population was begun at the close of the first great war, and took effect at the two levels of government. A real attack was made on the disease. It is only within the last short space of time, less than a decade, that we have accelerated the campaign against t.b. among the Indians. Last year, for instance, out of the population of 133,000 Indians we X-rayed almost 72,000. That indicates the extent of the service being provided, and is in great measure responsible for the showing I am able to report.


William Scottie Bryce: Is it the intention of the department to build more nursing stations? Are they a big help in getting people to other hospitals? What progress will be made at Norway House this summer, so' far as the hospital is concerned?


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is hoped that we will make good progress this summer. It is our objective to make considerable progress before the autumn.


William Scottie Bryce: Are more nursing stations to be established in the far north?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes; that is part of our campaign, to the extent of our ability to provide personnel and the necessary funds.


Mr. Harkness:: The minister has indicated considerable progress in the last three or four years in looking after the health of Indians. That is satisfactory to everyone in Canada who has had any experience with the native population. I was somewhat disturbed in looking over the details of the estimates to see that the number of people on the staff in the Indian affairs branch has been reduced by thirty-four.


Paul Joseph James Martin: They were thirty-four positions that had not been filled, junior positions having nothing to do with the health services work.
Supply-Health and Welfare


Douglas Scott Harkness: I was hopeful that that was not an indication that the work was slackening off, so far as the health of Indians was concerned.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend may be assured of that.


Douglas Scott Harkness: While the minister's figures indicated that there has been an improvement from 579-1 per thousand in 1946 to 399-6 in 1949, nevertheless the rate is very high-about fifteen times as high as that among the white population. So long as we have a rate among the Indians fifteen times as high as that among the white population it indicates that a great deal more must be done in trying to stamp out this plague among the native population. The minister said that about 72,000 Indians have now been X-rayed. I should like to ask what arrangements have been made or what is being done in the current year to have the remaining Indians X-rayed for tjb.?


Paul Joseph James Martin: We are going ahead with our mobile clinics and we have provided additional equipment in areas where it was not in existence. We are making arrangements in some provinces for X-rays by local hospital units and by local practising physicians. Our aim is to have every available Indian in Canada X-rayed before the end of 1953. I have asked my officials why that cannot be done by the end of 1952, but I am told that that is the abjective toward which we must work. That does not mean that it is going to be easily reached, but my hon. friend may be sure that we intend to pursue this with the vigour which I think he will admit has characterized the activities to date of the Indian health division.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am glad the department is pressing ahead with this, but after all 72,000 is just about half the Indians in Canada. It seems to me that more rapid progress could have been made. Large numbers of these Indians must be in inhabited areas which are fairly accessible, and it would seem that a little more intensive work would get things done much more rapidly.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It could not be more intensive. For instance, all the Indians in the settled areas in Alberta have been X-rayed, and that is true pretty well all over. No effort will be overlooked, I can assure my hon. friend.


Douglas Scott Harkness: More than half of our
Indians live in comparatively settled areas, but only half of this work has been done. I presume some of them live in the more uninhabited areas. I notice from the details that there are twelve positions which are not being filled because the item reads, "Less-flat decrease (Moose Factory hospital)".

Supply-Health and Welfare What is the meaning of that particular item and what is the present situation in regard to the Moose Factory hospital?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That was just a flat decrease in 1950-51. The hospital at Moose Factory is completely occupied; there are 153 beds with 153 patients. We had difficulty getting staff and other personnel, but I am sure the results there will be manifest.


Douglas Scott Harkness: What does the flat decrease refer to?


Paul Joseph James Martin: It was a decrease in the
estimates of last year.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Apparently twelve people
at Moose Factory were provided for in the estimates but are not provided for this year, which accounts for a decrease of $24,960.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, it was a decrease in
1950-51 only.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Why this decrease of twelve in the staff?


Paul Joseph James Martin: We did not need them last
year.


Douglas Scott Harkness: There must have been an
overestimate to begin with when the hospital is filled to capacity.


Paul Joseph James Martin: There was. You cannot
estimate things exactly.


Douglas Scott Harkness: A considerable number of
doctors, nurses, cleaners, helpers, ward aides and housemaids are covered by this item. Could the minister state how many Indians are employed in these positions?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I cannot give the exact
number, but we are endeavouring in the main to employ Indians in certain kinds of posts. Obviously there are posts where that cannot be done. We do not succeed fully, but to the extent that it is possible, that is our objective.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Can the minister give an
estimate of how many Indians are employed?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Offhand I cannot, but I
will provide the information before the estimates are over.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I ask that question because in the past, in both the health branch and the Indian Affairs branch, there have not been anything like the number of Indians employed that could have been employed or should be employed. That is a situation which I hope will be corrected and that is why I am anxious to get the figures.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I agree fully with the hon.
member.


Douglas Scott Harkness: There is an item of
$4,730,000 covering hospital, doctors' and


other professional and special fees. Apparently this is in addition to the considerable number of doctors and other people who are regular or part-time employees of the department.


Paul Joseph James Martin: This item is required to pay
the accounts of more than 700 hospitals and 800 doctors, dentists, nurses and other persons providing treatment or other care and attention to sick Indians and Eskimos. The increase is due to the fact that expenditures in the last six months of 1950-51 amounted to $2,300,000 and it is anticipated that this rate of expenditure at least will continue for this year. As my hon. friend knows, the main job of looking after Indian help is not done here at the centre where we have a relatively small administrative personnel. It is done by our full-time personnel in the hospitals and nursing units throughout the country, and in addition we rely upon assistance in many hundreds of localities, as I have indicated, from doctors who work on a fee per person basis in treating Indians.


Douglas Scott Harkness: You have listed 54 parttime physicians, in addition to some 50 odd regular medical officers. Then there is this other large item for doctors' and other professional and special fees. I assume that those are fees to doctors who are not on the part-time staff?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right.


Douglas Scott Harkness: And dental and hospital
fees for Indians treated in hospitals apart from the Indian Affairs hospitals?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I might tell my hon. friend
that many hospitals are not satisfied with our payments. Some of them feel that the per diem rate is not sufficient and we are having controversy over that matter. I am trying to meet it within the budget at my disposal. If it were not for that, I am afraid the amount would be considerably larger.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I do not want to leave the impression in the mind of the minister or anyone else that I am complaining about the amount. I was merely trying to find out what the explanation was.


William Gourlay Blair: During the spring many of us had the opportunity of making a trip to Churchill and visiting the hospital there and I feel the time has come when an opposition member should advocate an additional expenditure. I was much impressed with the work being done in the army hospital there where they were trying to treat Eskimos and Indians. I feel that that hospital should be rebuilt and I would advocate some arrangement being made between the Department of

National Health and Welfare and the Department of National Defence to provide new hospital accommodation. A survey of the number of Indians and Eskimos in the vicinity would probably show that a combined operation could be carried on and it might be that a wing could be erected or a new hospital provided for these people.
I think all hon. members who visited there must realize that a new hospital would be desirable, not only for the defence forces stationed there but for the many Indians and Eskimos. Therefore you have the peculiar thing of an opposition member advocating expenditure, but I never feel it should be considered an expense. I feel that it would be money well expended and would bring returns.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend was kind
enough to mention that to me some time ago, and we are looking into it. As he knows, many of the existing hospitals we have are institutions that were used by the armed forces during the war which we were able to get for a reasonable consideration, and which now form an important part of our hospital chain throughout the country.


Mr.   Baler@: I wish to take a moment to say a few words on this item of operation and maintenance of Indian and Eskimo health services. I want to take this opportunity to pay a tribute to the minister and lhis staff for the increased medical care and hospitalization that our Indian population is now getting. Last winter I had the opportunity of going through the Indian hospital located at the airport at North Battleford. I was escorted through the institution under the guidance of Dr. Head, the capable superintendent in charge. I was shown up-to-date equipment and was escorted through the various wards. I should like to mention the matron, Miss J. M. Morton, R.N., a 1936 graduate of the Regina general hospital. She also served overseas as nurse lieutenant for some two and a half years during the last war, and after serving at the Prince Rupert Indian hospital came to North Battle-ford some two years ago.
I was informed that more than 1,400 patients have passed through the hospital since its inception. Of this number some 145 were major surgical cases. There were 125 babies delivered during this period including one set of twins, and also 1,000 out patients were treated. Before taking my seat I should like to mention the work and skill of one of the nurses working under Nurse Morton. I wish to refer to Martha Soonias who was born on the Red Pheasant reserve, educated at Saskatoon and later took a mothercraft course in Toronto. After a post-graduate course in New Zealand, where
Supply-Health and Welfare she qualified as a registered midwife, she served for a time on the staff of St. Helen's hospital, Wellington, New Zealand. She returned to Canada in January, 1948, and joined the staff of the Indian hospital then being assembled there. I should just like to say that I consider that great steps forward have been taken in recent years by this department for the care and treatment of our first Canadians.


Douglas Scott Harkness: When I was making a few
remarks about tuberculosis I forgot to ask one question. To what extent do the hospitals of the department look after tubercular Indians who need hospitalization? In other words, how many tubercular Indians are there, if any, who cannot be accommodated in these hospitals?


Paul Joseph James Martin: To the extent of our'facilities every Indian who is suffering from tuberculosis in such a way that he requires that kind of attention is either in a nursing station or in one of our own hospitals. We endeavour to keep them in the nursing stations only for the minimum period before transferring them to our own hospitals. In very many instances, notably in the province of Ontario where they have an excellent system of sanatoria, Indians are quartered in those places, but to the extent that our facilities will permit there is no Indian suffering from tuberculosis and needing hospitalization who is not getting it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Indians and Eskimos health services-
271.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $1,609,000.
Douglas Scott Harkness: Will the minister tell us
what hospital construction is going ahead this year? I presume if there is any it is under construction now inasmuch as we are well into the building season.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We are providing for an addition to our hospital at Fort Qu'Appelle of some fifty beds, the construction of a modern hospital at Norway House, to which the hon. member for Selkirk has already directed my attention. We are engaged in the restoration of the fire damage at our hospital at Coqua-leetza in the riding of the hon. member for Fraser Valley, which unfortunately took place a short time ago. We are providing for the repair of the staff quarters of the Charles Camsell Indian hospital at Edmonton, which is our largest hospital having some 453 beds. Undoubtedly my hon. friend knows about it. Then we are providing for a doctors' residence at the Fisher River Indian reserve. I might say I have encountered some reluctance in securing authorization for these physicians' residences, but
4454	HOUSE OF
Supply-Health and Welfare there are some cases where you simply cannot get medical help unless they are provided, and naturally so. That is the program of construction envisaged at the present time.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I take it that this is all a
matter of finishing construction which was started last year, and that there is no new construction with the possible exception of this residence.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Norway House is new.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It was not under construction last year?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
277. Hospital design and consulting service, $24,286.
Mr. Herridge:: Can the minister say how
many are employed in this division, what work they are doing, and whom they advise with respect to hospital construction, and so on?


Paul Joseph James Martin: There are five people engaged in that division, which I believe is a very useful one. I should like to pay a public tribute to the director of the division who was offered a job in Ottawa by the architects of Canada at a salary $3,200 more than the maximum his present position carries. In this instance, knowing all the circumstances, it was out of a sense of clear public duty that he has continued in this post. When the opportunity comes to pay tribute to public service of that type I think one should not hesitate to do so, and I have done so in this house today because he deserves it. Naturally he plays a very big part in the development of our national health program, particularly with respect to our hospital construction campaign. Over the last two and one-quarter years we have collaborated with the provincial governments in providing nearly 30,000 additional hospital beds in Canada. That is an achievement which I am sure Canada will note with the greatest measure of satisfaction. This particular officer plays a great part in assisting local bodies in the designing of hospitals, in saving them money and providing efficient operation. He is able to do so because of his exclusive experience over the last five years in hospital design work. He has a staff of five. I may say that his staff is not large enough and we have had to rely upon assistance from other departments. That we have done. I cannot speak too highly of this division.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am very glad to hear the minister say that. I raise the point particularly because I am all in favour of the good work being done by officials of this branch.


However, the cost of hospitals is a very serious thing to the people of Canada, and in particular to the people of British Columbia. Here we have a department in Ottawa dealing with hospital design. The provincial governments have departments dealing with hospital design. Then when you come to build a hospital you have to pay an architect a percentage of the total cost.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not believe there is one provincial government that has a hospital design division.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Pardon me, they may not be termed hospital design divisions, but in British Columbia there is an architects branch which advises in the construction of schools and hospitals. Then when a local hospital board comes to build a hospital they have got to employ an architect and pay a percentage of the cost to him. Personally I should like to see the federal and provincial governments carry this right through in order to save the taxpayers money and provide supervision in construction.	.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
278. Mental health, $50,610.
Mr. Carroll:: Would the minister say what co-operation there is between the provincial mental health departments and the federal department? I was also going to ask the reason for the decrease in this item this year.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I was going to say there is no decrease; I was thinking of the mental health grant item, on which I wanted to.say a few words, and I might as well do so right now. The decrease in this item, however, is not indicative of any lessening of our efforts to do something about mental health. It results from the fact that we have eliminated some of our public information items in the field of mental health, to the extent of about $35,000. This is part of our program of public information that was conceived some time ago, and this year we are not going ahead with some films and some literature which we and the provinces have agreed are not necessary just now. In view of what the hon. member for Lanark said in his excellent statement I want to reassure him and all hon. members that we regard this problem of mental health as one of our most serious challenges, and I think we are meeting it.
The biggest single grant we have in the national health program is for assistance in mental health. As hon. members have noted, more than 50 per cent of our hospital beds are occupied by patients who suffer from mental ill health. This is a challenge we have to face. It is not a problem peculiar to

Canada; it is true of other countries as well. The causes are perhaps controversial, but they exist. We have embarked upon a program, and I sometimes wish I had time to really go into detail and tell the house what is being done. It is not simply because I am the minister; I am sure no body of public servants in the government of Canada is engaged in greater work than the officers of my department working in this field of health, particularly in mental health control. When I think of what the national health program has done in this field alone I feel that I may have been amiss in not bringing home these great achievements.
We have moved1 from a policy of mere custodial care into actual treatment. Perhaps I misunderstood the glance of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, but I assure him that is of the utmost significance. The result is that today we see people leaving our institutions who a decade ago would have been kept there for years. That is due largely to the sort of therapy which is being provided at federal expense in order to supplement the great work being done by the provincial departments of health. The training of occupational therapists is under the national health program, and1 they go into institutions in the provinces, many of which formerly could not afford them. The results are phenomenal. But we are not stopping at that; we are engaged in a program of prevention. We now have thirty-nine mental health clinics in Canada as a result of this program, by which we hope to relieve many people of the necessity of going into mental institutions, by getting them in the earliest stages and treating them in their local communities. One such clinic is located in my own city, and when I mention that I hope no one will think it was put there because I happen to be in charge of this department; I mention it by way of illustration. By arrangement with the province that was thought to be one of the centres where such a clinic should be established. There is one in Cape Breton, ns another example. Last year, to use the figures for the clinic in my own city, over 1,000 children went through it. The psychiatrists, psychologists and social psychiatrists are paid out of funds provided by the national health program. The consequences to this nation of that kind of treatment I am sure will be of the greatest significance in the future.
The hon. member for Lanark quite properly pointed out the importance of research in this field. I can tell him that I am not satisfied with the progress we have made. Largely because of deficiencies in trained personnel, and not through any lack of desire to do
Supply-Health and Welfare something, the provinces have not been able to use as much of the mental health grant as is available to them now, and I hope steps can be taken by the provinces to make full use of it. 1 know we have helped provide over 3,000 trained persons under this program, a good number of whom will find their way into the provincial mental health divisions so they will be able to take up this work. Research is very important, of course, and I give as an example the Work being done by Dr. Ewen Cameron in Montreal. There we have given about $340,000 for research alone. We also assist the university of Montreal in its research in the field of psychiatry; we assist the university of Toronto. As my hon. friend said, this is a field in which the nation's resources may be well spent. He can be sure that if there is one field in which we are trying to provide direction and vigour, this is it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
281. Health insurance studies and administration of general health grants, $72,409.
William Gourlay Blair: Since the flurry we had about health insurance I have had an opportunity to read the evening newspaper, and the question of a health insurance scheme has been taken up by the Canadian Medical Association. I have not full information, but I believe they will make an honest attempt to do a good job. In the evening newspaper 1 notice two or three things that association is attempting to do, some of which strike me as very important. I do not know whether the minister will agree with the first one I am going to mention. This is an interview with Dr. McNulty, who said the government would be asked to pay the full cost of premiums of some sections of the population. The second point made is the free choice of doctors; and I was particularly taken with this statement:
It will protect the public and at the same time keep Canada's medical standards high.
Another point with which I was particularly pleased was the fact that they are working for reciprocity as between the provinces. I am sure this scheme will have a great deal to commend it, and that out of it we may be able to develop a great plan to cover the whole country. There may have to be additions, subtractions and changes, but I think we will all look forward to this plan in view of the fact that it is put forward by the doctors themselves, who I feel should be capable of dealing with this situation. For myself I will await full details with a great deal of interest.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.

Supply-Health and Welfare AFTER RECESS
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Earlier today, Mr. Chairman, I had the privilege of paying a compliment to the hon. member for Lanark. It was a compliment that I was only too happy to pay, but I must now say that I cannot agree with the comments he made just before six o'clock. The hon. member made reference to reports in the press of today to the effect that the Canadian Medical Association is apparently going ahead with a private plan for prepaid medical care. If I understood the hon. member for Lanark correctly, he indicated that he had not seen all of the details of this plan and therefore did not wish to make a final commitment, but that in general he thought it might be a good idea.
Yesterday I had occasion to express my views with respect to this proposal. I did so because of a question and answer on the orders of the day yesterday morning. I made it clear last night that I felt that the whole question of health insurance should come under the aegis and under the administration of the governments of this country, recognizing that in the last analysis it will involve co-operation between the federal government and the governments of the various provinces. I feel, however, that it is extremely important that we get a statement from the Minister of National Health and Welfare with respect to this matter. He might say to me that another statement from him is unnecessary because of commitments he has made in the past to the principle of a program of health insurance for the people of Canada. But in view of this development at the meeting of the Canadian Medical Association I think it is timely that the Minister of National Health and Welfare have something to say on. this matter tonight.
One of the comments in the press with regard to this proposed plan is to the effect that the doctors would handle it under their own autonomous powers and that those who could afford to do so would pay their own premiums, but that the federal government would be asked to make contributions to the fund on behalf of those who could not afford to pay their own premiums. It seems to me that that is a case of this fine group of men, to whom I also paid a tribute this afternoon, getting out of their own field.
I have the highest respect for the work that doctors do in the field of medicine. I have personal reason to say that. I do not detract from it in any way. I am also extremely conscious of the great amount of work that doctors do for patients for which they get no

pay. I do not want to speak in language that would seem to make comparisons, but I am particularly aware of the way in which the doctors in my own city of Winnipeg carry on with respect to that phase of the matter. But when it comes to health insurance, when it comes to a plan to make possible the pooling of the costs of medical care, I am just as convinced as I believe is the Liberal party- judging from its official platform-and as I believe is the Minister of National Health and Welfare, that this is a matter that should come under the administration of the governments of this country.
For a number of years on the minister's estimates I have had occasion to prod him with regard to this item for health insurance studies. I am glad to note that the amount asked for has been increased a bit year by year, and that this year the amount asked for is greater than ever. I feel that it is particularly timely-indeed it is now urgent-that some action should be taken in the field of health insurance. From the newspaper reports it looks as though the aim of this plan proposed by the doctors is to head off what is referred to in the Ottawa Journal as socialized medicine. Even if there are some things about the doctors' plan that are good, it surely must be recognized by anyone who looks at it closely that it could be the enemy of something a great deal better.
We are spending money to provide for health insurance studies. The Liberal party is committed to the principle of health insurance. I need not go into the details about that again, for last night I read from what Mr. King had to say about that question at the Liberal convention of 1919. I also read from plank No. 11 which was adopted at the Liberal convention of 1948. I also read a statement made by the present Prime Minister in a national broadcast in December, 1948. The official position of the Liberal party is clear. I believe the position of the Minister of National Health and Welfare is clear. But what is lacking is action. We keep on asking questions and getting answers that mean nothing. We go on voting money for health insurance studies. But as yet we have not any real program of health insurance.
I should be happy if the minister would comment in general on the question of a health insurance program; and if he cares to do so, I should be glad if he would express any views he has with respect to the plan which has been reported recently in the press.


Mr. Croll:: Mr. Chairman, I was absent
when the discussion took place earlier in the day. I happened to be at a committee meeting. I was not present when the

original flutter took place. May I say at once, in order to make it clear, that I am unalterably opposed to socialized or state medicine where the medical services, the workers and the doctors are state-controlled. I do not wish to see the relationship between the doctor and the patient destroyed. But I am in favour of a government-sponsored health insurance plan. We as a party are committed to an all-embracing social security program which included a health insurance plan, with special emphasis on medical, dental, surgical and hospital services. The Canadian people have for a long time demanded it and are expecting it. They are not as impatient as some people would indicate, but nevertheless they are expecting us to produce such a plan within a reasonable time.
The Canadian Medical Association have some plan of their own, and one of their spokesmen today said that prepayment medical schemes of the Canadian Medical Association will provide Canadians-and these are the words to which I direct attention-"with a better alternative to government health insurance." So far as I am concerned there is no alternative to government health insurance. Whatever they can do, we as a government can do better, cheaper, more satisfactorily, more uniformly and more in the public interest.


Mr. Fulford:: Is that the experience of
Great Britain?


David Arnold Croll: I think you will find that that
is the experience in Great Britain. They are very well satisfied with it. As a matter of fact all the political parties in Great Britain support the health plans there. There is no political difference of opinion in Britain on the health plan, and there certainly is not any difference of opinion amongst the people. Originally there were some difficulties, which we are trying to profit by in Canada, by such actions as are taken by this government and the present minister in building up hospitals, facilities for training nurses and medical research of various kinds. At the appropriate time we will be able to go into a scheme on a fairly prepared basis.
I have no objection to the present voluntary medical schemes. I think they are good. In time I think they will provide us with valuable information for the development of our own national health scheme.
There can be no denial that the medical services today are woefully inadequate in this country, and the price for medical care in the market place is too high. We in this House of Commons must in some way find an answer to this problem. I do believe that
Supply-Health and Welfare medical care must come as a right and not as a dole. When we speak of over-all coverage we, the government of Canada, have more experience with respect to that than has anyone else. We have considerable experience in administering family allowances; we have considerable experience in administering old age pensions and unemployment insurance. There is not a body in all of Canada that has more experience in administering over-all coverage than have we in this House of Commons. In my short experience in this house I have come firmly to believe that our top civil servants in the government have as much administrative brains as has any other group in Canada.
I think our duty is to study and to explore and to find a solution to the financial riddle that lies at the heart of Canadian health.
I picked up some figures today having to do with the health of this country. I find that from 15,000 to 20,000 die yearly of ailments which could be cured or prevented by timely medical care; that a third of the people of Canada do not have the services of a family doctor, and wait too long before seeking medical care; and that only 20 per cent of the people of Canada are able to afford all the medical care that they need.
I think the Canadian Medical Association could well devote itself to building up the voluntary services across Canada; there is a great field there. But when they say-and I quote from the press-"We expect to give better service to the public than any government-sponsored scheme," then they are making a direct attack upon the plans that we have in mind and have had in mind for some time. They are confusing and misleading the public.
We are committed to a national health insurance plan. There can be no retreat from that. It is eminently clear to me that a national health plan is the very best medicine that money can buy. I do not want to hold up the committee, but I want to say this to the minister. The government, and he particularly, have been laying a very solid foundation for health insurance in this country. Their grants to hospitals, their inducement to building hospitals, their grants to health studies show that they have consistently attempted to create a situation that will make it possible for us to bring into being some day in the foreseeable future a national health plan which the people of this country are asking for, something that is in keeping with our all-embracing social security program. We had an example of it here today when hon. members from all sides of the house attempted to get on their feet as quickly as possible in order to give praise
4458	HOUSE OF
Supply-Health and Welfare to a measure which was introduced by way of a resolution dealing with old age pensions.
I assure the minister that the health insurance program which the people of Canada have in their minds is equally important as the old age security program, and is expected by the people of Canada in a similar way. We should1 not disappoint them. I re-emphasize that the Canadian Medical Association is doing fine work, and should continue carrying on its voluntary work; but in so far as a national health plan is concerned, that is our job of work. They ought not to anticipate that they will ever take that over. If there is going to be any taking over, it will be done by us and not by them.


William Gourlay Blair: I find myself in agreement with some of the things that the hon. member for Spadina has said, but there is also a considerable part of his speech with which I cannot find agreement.
I think this action was taken by the doctors because they realized that something should be done about it. Personally, I have been advocating health insurance here for years, and as I mentioned this afternoon I saw the necessity for it. But I think the thing that was disturbing the Canadian Medical Association was their fear that under some scheme brought in the patient-doctor relationship would be disturbed. That is one thing on which they feel very strongly.
So far as the remarks of the hon. member are concerned, I wonder just what he meant when he said that the cost of medical care was too high. Surely, as a barrister, he did not intend to reflect on the fees charged by the medical people. I think what he meant to say was that the cost of hospital care and the cost of sickness have now gone beyond the reach of a great many people in Canada.
I do not think that any care for the sick can be a success in Canada unless you have the full co-operation of the Canadian Medical Association. It has taken them a long time to come to agreement on this matter, to come to agreement on certain things such as the matter of reciprocity between provinces. And when they brought forward this scheme it probably was in revolt against state medicine as administered in Great Britain.
A great deal of good may be-accomplished by any form of plan; and, as I said this afternoon, I am not going to pass judgment on this plan until I have seen the whole plan and have had time to pass on it. But I assure you, sir, that a body of men like the Canadian Medical Association are conversant with conditions in Canada. It is not so easy to come forward with a plan which would be a success in Canada. Our population is widely


distributed, and there would be problems arising from the geographical distribution of that population.
A great deal is being done free of charge at this time by the medical people in the outdoor departments of the hospitals, and I am still proud to say that the medical men have never hesitated to attend patients, whether they were able to pay fees or not. But when I find the Canadian Medical Association producing a plan, I am convinced it has not been done without having been first given a great deal of deliberation. I know they have discussed this matter for some years. They realize something should be done. They know the costs connected with running their hospitals, and they are familiar with the fact that almost all hospitals are running in the red. They realize, too, that there is need for treatment of a great many people in Canada who have not the opportunity for treatment. Therefore I suggest that before criticizing this plan it should be thoroughly investigated-because I am convinced no group of doctors representing the whole of Canada would bring in a plan made for the purpose of forwarding their own interests. I am sure the hon. member for Spadina will change his view when he sees some of the suggestions brought into the plan. Personally I have so much faith in the members of my own profession and in the deliberations that have taken place that I am content to wait. I think this will be a worthwhile plan, and will be of advantage to the citizens of Canada.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the minister comment on this matter?	.


Paul Joseph James Martin: This matter is one of some importance, and I had intended to say a word or two about it. With regard to the particular scheme that has given the discussion current interest, I think it is important not to attribute to it something that the doctors themselves have not attributed. Naturally over the course of many months I have had the opportunity of discussing this and many kindred problems with the medical profession.
Let me say at the outset that since I have been Minister of National Health and Welfare I have been inspired by the public spirit of the Canadian medical profession, and have recognized it as a profession that has rendered great service to humanity, and wishes to continue to do so. I feel that anything I say tonight should be prefaced with the observation that, no matter what scheme is envisaged to meet this social problem, it cannot succeed unless there is a great measure of collaboration between the medical

profession on one hand and governments and voluntary agencies on the other. It is in that spirit that I have approached my task, and it is in the same spirit that I have been received by the medical profession. As I have so frequently said in public, in any studies this government makes of this problem it will never embark upon a scheme that will disturb the very important doctor-patient relationship which I think good experience will indicate is very essential in any free society.
That has not been the case in other places; and where it has not been the case the result has been that schemes have been prejudiced and retrenchments have had to be resorted to, with the result that patterns created many years ago have been curtailed or destroyed as a result of extreme action. I think the thing to do in this problem is to realize that what is important is that a job be done; we can all argue in a free society that a job can be done better by one group or another, but the important thing is not who does the job, but that the job be done.
I have looked at this problem, and looked at it intensely for four and a half years, and it seems to me that those are the cardinal principles. I do not believe that anything that has emanated from the Canadian Medical Association, or from those who would take what might appear to be formally opposite views, is in disagreement on those points.
First, as to the scheme about which questions were asked yesterday of the Prime Minister, and about which so much has been said today, it is important to realize what has been discussed by the Canadian Medical Association. That was a scheme to induce various prepaid medical and hospital care plans across Canada to get together in order that they could sell a single insurance package to national agencies such as the banks, the railways and so on. There are in various provinces different programs involving different standards of fees, different coverage and differences in the number of agencies having to do with prepaid medical care. Obviously in these schemes that arise out of provincial charters based upon the supremacy of provincial parliaments in the field of property and civil rights, there is a lack of interchangeability between the operations of these prepaid medical plans as between one province and another, or between all provinces. And it is not unnatural tfiat to the extent that these programs go, there should be a desire to provide for national coverage.
Rather than indulge at this stage in a criticism of the proposed scheme, as though
Supply-Health and Welfare it were an effort to supplant particular objectives that have been declared to be the political objectives of various groups, one should look upon it, as I believe and know it to be, as a real and sincere attempt on the part of the medical profession to meet a problem which they recognize, just as we do.
These prepaid medical schemes have an admittedly limited coverage. They do not cover all phases of the problem,. In most of these particular prepaid medical schemes hospitalization is not included. Blue Cross does cover hospitalization; and I presume that if this proposed plan were ever to be realized there would have to be an integration of a program of that sort with these other prepaid medical plans.
Our studies-and they are important- indicate that a great burden lies in the matter of hospitalization. It may be for that reason that some provinces have embarked upon hospitalization schemes prior to adopting plans having to do with medical care insurance.
I believe one will do a disservice to the realization of this program unless one considers it carefully, step by step, irritating as that course may appear to be to some. But you can easily embark on a program, as in certain jurisdictions in this country it is now realized-, which creates great difficulty'

sufficient almost to jeopardize schemes well intentioned in their conception but seemingly very difficult in their operation.
As long as I have anything to do with this I propose to look at the question objectively without in any way setting aside the opinions which I personally may hold in respect to this matter. What we want to see, all of us regardless of political differences, is an arrangement in the country by which we can minimize the costs of the incidence of disease and, as sometimes happens, its crushing economic burden on the individual family or person.
It was with that in mind that we embarked in 1948 upon the national health program which I am bold enough to say, as a result of the co-operation we have had from the ten provincial governments, is effecting improvements in the health standards of the Canadian people which are away beyond the fondest hopes we had when that plan was created and announced by the Prime Minister of Canada at that time. I hope he will not mind my saying it, but as he is so close to me I will run the risk of incurring his criticism for saying that in my judgment this plan would never have been possible

Supply-Health and Welfare but for the very sincere and intense support given it by the present Prime Minister of Canada.
This program sought to provide, out of the consolidated fund of the country, moneys to assist the provinces in their already excellent health services, sometimes deficient for one reason or another and in most instances because of the lack of the necessary economic power. But we did embark on this program and sometimes we lose sight of its significance and extent.
In 1945 the federal government did make certain proposals to the provinces and among those proposals, apart from the general offer to assist in the matter of a national health insurance scheme initiated by the provinces, was the proposal for certain grants in aid in respect of the improvement of the general public health, the control of tuberculosis, cancer, crippling conditions in children, medical scientific research and hospital construction.
The extent of the offer in that particular in 1945 represented a total of $17,500,000. The plan that was announced in May of 1948 represented a total expenditure which was nearly twice the amount of the proposal made in 1945. The significance of that has often been overlooked in the discussion of this important matter. To the original scheme were added two operations that were not contemplated and not put forward to the provinces in 1945.
The first was assistance in the matter of cancer control. That was added. In the 1945 proposals, assistance was offered to the provinces in connection with hospital construction by way of loans at low interest rates to enable them to engage in a program of hospital construction. In the program announced in 1948 we made an offer to the provinces of a matching grant in cancer control and hospital construction because we were anxious to see construction take place. Instead of offering low interest loans we proposed to the provinces that we would make outright grants on the condition that they put up at least a like amount to assist in the building of hospital beds.
In the words of the American Public Health Association, which I know by heart because they have been an inspiration to us in the department in carrying on this work, this program represents "the most comprehensive step in the field of public health ever introduced by any federal state in the world." Those are most significant observations made by a neutral organization.
The result has been that in three and a quarter years, faced as we were with a shortage of hospital beds, 40,000 in number, in little over half of the five year objective
tMr. Martin.!

posed for ourselves, we have along with the provinces collaborated in the building of 30,000 additional hospital beds. You cannot have a health insurance scheme function successfully under any auspices unless you meet this problem of bed shortage. We have gone to the extent I have indicated toward meeting that most important and necessary prerequisite. When the Prime Minister announced this program in 1948 he referred to the whole program as a prerequisite of a system of health insurance in Canada.
Not only have we helped build these hospital beds, we have supplied the ten provincial governments health personnel to the extent of over 3,000. I wonder if hon. members appreciate the significance of that. Three thousand additional persons have been employed in the health field, in public health units and in the various provincial departments of health, as a result of financial assistance given under this program.
I am sure that hon. members realize the significance of the training program that is under way. We are short of nurses in Canada to the extent of 8,000, and we are also short, as are other countries, of other personnel in the health field to the extent of many hundreds and, in some instances, many thousands. Under this program we have given assistance to over 900 nurses who presumably would have found it difficult to obtain training but for the program.
We have now actually given bursary assistance to not less than 2,800 individuals. This bursary assistance is being given in our medical centres, in our public health centres, and in occupational therapy centres at the universities. But for this assistance many of these persons might not have been able to continue with their training.
We have supplied our hospitals with equipment of all kinds running into millions of dollars which otherwise might not have been purchased. I am sure hon. members from Prince Edward Island who know something of the problem there with regard to mental illness will be able to corroborate what I am saying in that regard. In this rich province of Ontario, to use the words of the premier of the province, were it not for the assistance given under this plan they would not have been able to embark upon the accelerated program of public health activities that has gone on in Ontario during the past two years.
We should think of the work that was being done in the field of medical scientific research before this program came into being when only $350,000 was being expended on medical research. Today under this program that figure is close to $3 million. When this program began, in the field of cancer

research there were but two programs of significance. Today there are ninety-two under way in our various medical centres at our Canadian universities. All those are facts of the greatest significance gradually leading up to the time when we can competently deal with this program, not irresponsibly, not because we want to satisfy political fancy or some theoretical concept of the role of the state, but because we will be in a practical position to deal with this important problem. I believe that unless it is approached in that way we would do more harm than good.
But there is this further consideration. We are a federal state. We have ten provincial governments which have been endowed with the constitutional responsibility of directing health policy in their jurisdictions. Anyone who has had anything to do with dominion-provincial relations-and I may say that I have had my share in the past four and a half years-knows full well that any scheme we adopt must be one that will be followed by the co-operation of the provinces of Canada. I have talked to the representatives of every one of the ten provinces of Canada about this matter. I know this, of the ten provinces, that until such time as we are ready and equipped we Will not get their co-operation. Indeed some provinces, for reasons best known to themselves, take the view that this is not the way to deal with this problem.
No man who holds my responsibility would be able to bring in any scheme successfully by using the iron heel with respect to the provinces because in some instances they have a deep and special philosophy of life. I believe that one cannot do things in a federal state except by co-operation. My views in this matter are well known. They have not lost one iota of their zeal, and it is because of that that I propose, as long as I am in this position, to discharge this responsibility with those considerations in mind, knowing that as a result we are more likely going to be able to share in the success than in the failure of the realization of our objective.
We have under way now two important surveys that have not been mentioned today. One of the offers made by the national health program was that we agreed to assume the full cost of a survey in each province in the whole field of public health. These surveys are under way in every one of our provinces. I had hoped that they would be concluded before now but they are not. Three provinces have made interim reports, and they have asked us not to disclose their contents yet. In two instances recommendations are made in the reports of the surveys to the provincial
Supply-Health and Welfare governments, and the provincial governments naturally want to consider the implications of the recommendations before we can make them public. The other seven reports, which have to do with the whole business of the pursuit of health-and that is a complicated business-will be ready, I hope, some time this fall for scrutiny, and for consideration by the provincial governments.
There is another survey that in one sense is of even greater significance. I announced during the last session of parliament that we had undertaken a sickness survey in Canada.
I am told that no other country in the world has undertaken such a program. That survey is now under way, and has been under way for about six and a half months. Some of its interim conclusions are before me, but I believe until they have been finally and fully reported it would be unfair to make their content known. That survey, conducted by the federal government through the co-operation of the provinces and at our expense, is intended to reveal a statistical showing of morbidity and health in this country of a very extensive character. It will show the cost of health care. No province today can adequately show that, and all provinces readily concur in the objective of the sickness survey.
It will reveal not only the incidence of disease, the extent, for instance, of incapacity, and the income earning position of individuals with respect to matters of medical and hospital care as well as the income capacity of individuals who are disabled. The purpose is so that we will know in that particular, as in all others, what the problems are that we must face. These are steps that are being taken by the government, steps that are consistent with the position that we have taken at all times with regard to this matter, and we will continue through these agencies, through our own health insurance studies, the staff for which has been augmented and the budget for which has been increased, the program of giving proper assessment to this problem. The objective of all these efforts is to arrive at the most responsible measure of determining the best way of minimizing the cost of medical and hospital care in Canada.
Our position in this matter is well known. The background that I have given is necessary to a knowledge of this problem. It does not in any way involve a change in attitude, but it does involve a determination to know what all the facts are. I do not believe that we would make any progress in this matter if we were to overestimate public acceptance of this problem or of its relation to national financial capacity. Some hon. members may take the view that we

Supply-Health and Welfare should do all these things at once. I am firmly of the opinion that these things cannot all be done at once. We have embarked upon a big program today, a program of the greatest significance, and I believe that the experience of practically every country in the world will reveal that these problems are solved not by bold declarations of intention but by careful step-by-step action. That, I believe, is what the Canadian people believe in, and I believe that they will have confidence in that approach rather than one that seeks to build up a situation suddenly overnight that could result in providing a lack of proper balance with respect to what I think our Canadian pattern requires, a balance between security and freedom.
Therefore we will examine the proposal of the Canadian Medical Association just as it was examined in 1943 when they came before the Heagerty committee and gave us their views in which they expressed their general agreement with the principle of health insurance. We will examine that problem, and in the regular session of 1952 I hope that we may be able-and I think I may go further than that and say that we are giving consideration to the matter-to set up a parliamentary committee to examine this whole problem.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I believe, Mr. Speaker, that
what I have said tonight should indicate, first of all, the government's sincere intention with respect to the problem that is involved here. We want to approach it in a way that will not cause the discordant notes that have been caused elsewhere. I know something about those notes. I have talked to some of the men who had the responsibility for the administration of schemes in some of these countries. We want to profit from some of their experience, as I am sure we all do. What we want to do is develop in the Canadian way, slowly perhaps but I think generally soundly, a responsible attitude and pattern that will not cause any real break between one section of the Canadian community and another. I believe that to be important.
As I review this problem in perspective I realize the difficulty there was in obtaining free education in a free society, and the same sort of problem exists with regard to this matter of equalizing the cost of medical and hospital care. We can do that and we will do that, undoubtedly co-operatively with the provincial governments and the health profession, in a manner that will be true to our


political objectives, to our political declarations, and always, as I believe they should be, in the true Canadian tradition.


Mr. Maclnnis:: The minister has been dealing with a very important question, in a way one of the most important questions facing the people of Canada today. He said that he was looking at the matter objectively, but I had a feeling that his words had an undertone indicating that the rest of us who were advocating something different were looking at things from preconceived political concepts; I think these were the words he used. If the minister expects us to accept his sincerity in this matter, the first requisite is that he should accept ours. What we are advocating we believe to be not only in the line of progress but to be imperative in that progress. I listened to him very intently and I am satisfied that if he has proven any one point it is this, that today the people of Canada as individuals, by and large, cannot pay for the medical and hospital services they require out of their own resources.
Step by step the government of Canada and the provinces have been obliged to come in to assist the people to get that medical care and the hospital services that today we consider not only desirable but absolutely necessary. He said that his policy, the government's policy, was to proceed step by step. I have no objection to this step by step approach. As a matter of fact, I am in favour of the step by step approach. But if you are going anywhere by the step by step method, the question of how soon you get there depends upon how quickly those steps follow each other. The trouble with the minister's step by step approach is that he is thinking of the step by step age that has passed, the age of the oxcart and not the step by step age of the aeroplane, the rocket and the wireless. If the minister knows anything of historic development, he knows that man's progress has moved at the same rate as his means of transportation.
When man had no other means of taking himself from one place to another except by walking, it took thousands of years for certain things to happen. Then came the use of the horse, and progress was made a little faster. Then came the railroad engine, and things moved faster still. Then came the gasoline engine, and the aeroplane and so on, and things are moving so fast today none of us knows exactly where he is.
I suggest to the minister that this country is not likely to get a policy from the medical profession that will provide prepaid services for everyone who needs medical services without the state organizing that service.

What is happening today is that the cost of medical and health services has increased to a point where it is beyond the resources of the majority of individuals, and this is true to a greater extent than it was twenty or twenty-five years ago. Anyone who has given any thought to this matter knows that we are not likely to get the assistance of the medical profession in any program we set up to provide medical and hospital services for everyone. It took years to get that any place where it has been accomplished, and perhaps no country has yet got it in a full measure because the medical profession has a -vested interest in things as they are. While that applies it is not natural to expect them to be interested in some other scheme of health service.
There is one thing, however, that has been settled, and that is wherever these schemes have been tried the people will never go back to the old way of doing things. In New Zealand, the United Kingdom, even with the opposition of the medical profession, progress has been made in supplying health services for everyone regardless of means. There would be no thought of any government that might follow the governments that are in office in those countries today throwing overboard what has been done, and going back to the old way of each person paying for his own medical services.	I suggest to the
minister that he keep these things in mind, and also keep in mind that those of us who are advocating something different are not doing so solely because of preconceived political concepts. We have made a study of these matters just as he has. Not only that, but we come in contract daily with people who cannot pay for the medical services they need. As we see these things we realize that there is only one way in which it can be done, and that is by the people doing collectively for themselves what they are not able to do for themselves as individuals. That is, in essence, what government means.


Mr. Wright:: I have just one question I should like to ask the minister. He stated that no medical scheme could be a success in Canada, or in any other country for that matter, without the collaboration of the medical profession. I think we all agree with him in that statement. This parliament agreed with him in it in 1942 and 1943 when we had the Heagerty committee to which he has referred. That committee called before it the medical profession and heard from them. They heard evidence from hospital associations. In fact, they consulted everybody who they thought might be able to give them some good advice on this matter.
Supply-Health and Welfare The medical profession are now proposing a scheme in which they are going to ask the government to do certain things. As is stated here in the press report:
. . . the government would be asked to pay the full cost of premiums of some sections of the population, and part premiums on a sliding scale for others, based on income.
I wonder if the medical profession did as this parliament did, namely consult the minister's department on this matter before making this announcement? I do not know. I suppose the minister could not answer for the provinces, but he certainly could answer for the government and for his own department.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is, of course, their own policy. I am not aware of that particular phase of it. I was aware of the general principles because they have been talking about it for some time. It is true, as my hon. friend said, that as to the Heagerty committee, which I mentioned, they came before that committee and accepted the principle of health insurance. My hon. friend will know that the next step was-


Percy Ellis Wright: We were prepared to consult with them. I am asking whether they were prepared to consult with us.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have always found that they were anxious to consult with us.


Percy Ellis Wright: Did they consult with us?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am speaking now with regard to that particular phase of the program. I do not have an immediate recollection of the general principles that they had in mind with regard to their prepaid medical scheme. They did discuss-


Percy Ellis Wright: In other words, the answer is no.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, the answer is not no. I am trying to give a responsible answer. I have the responsibility of administering this department, and every word I say will be carefully considered by the medical profession and other groups. I want to be responsible in what I am saying, and I know that the hon. member will understand that it is necessary for me to take that care and caution. The next step was that after the Heagerty committee the government adopted the principle and went before a dominion-provincial conference; and we all know the result of that in 1945.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There was one step before that. There was a draft bill.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What I tried to indicate was the importance of considering the ten provincial governments of Canada in this matter.

Supply-Health and Welfare


Percy Ellis Wright: That was not my question at all.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If I have not answered it, I am sorry.


Percy Ellis Wright: I understand that we are a federal state. What I asked was this: Was the minister's department consulted with respect to this scheme announced by the medical profession?


Paul Joseph James Martin: In the precise terms, no. But I do not want that answer to be construed as meaning that the medical profession were not anxious to consult with us or that they have not collaborated and consulted with us. They have.


Mr. Noseworthy:: Mr. Chairman, it was a great, consolation to those of us who sit here, hale and hearty, to have the minister's assurance that we are living in just about the best of all possible worlds, and that we have about the best possible medical, health and hospitalization scheme administered by the best possible Minister of National Health and Welfare. It is a great consolation to us to know that. But the tens of thousands of people in Canada who have been paying into some of these prepaid insurance schemes, some of whom have been waiting for months to get a hospital bed, will not find so much consolation in the minister's speech. The minister, with his usual dexterity, skated completely around the one question to which we wanted an answer. That question is whether the government as such has abandoned Liberal policy going back thirty years with regard to national health insurance. Has the government abandoned the policy of establishing national health insurance under government administration, and has it agreed to accept instead the scheme which has now been announced by the Canadian Medical Association? The Prime Minister's reply to questions yesterday would indicate that that is exactly what has happened to this Liberal government.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is the hon. member's interpretation.


Joseph William Noseworthy: That is my interpretation,.


Paul Joseph James Martin: But that is not true.


Joseph William Noseworthy: That is my interpretation and it is the interpretation of a great many other people in this country. There was nothing whatever in the minister's speech tonight to indicate that that is not the position of the government. The minister did not come out with a clear-cut statement to say that he and his department were still backing a national health insurance scheme instituted and administered by the government.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Apparently the hon. member did not hear what I said.


Joseph William Noseworthy: I certainly did not hear- and I doubt if anyone else did either-the minister come out with a straightforward statement in that respect. That is one question that we wanted answered.
I am not surprised that the Canadian Medical Association have come forward with the scheme which they have announced. I suspect that many thousands of Canadian doctors are just sick and tired of waiting for this government really to do something in the matter of health insurance. They are sick and tired of seeing thousands of their patients unable to get into hospital beds and unable to pay doctors' and hospital bills. This government has been dilly-dallying with this question of health insurance, and has been going, as the minister says, step by step for over thirty years. But those steps have not taken them much closer to the realization of a genuinely national health insurance scheme than we have ever been. I am not critical of the Canadian Medical Association. I hope that the effect of their announcement will be to spur this government into some little action in this matter. I hope that the effect of this announcement will be to induce the minister and his colleagues really to get down to earth in the planning of a national health insurance scheme.
The minister tells us that we cannot have such a national health insurance scheme until we get enough hospital beds to accommodate the people. Some of these groups operating these prepaid schemes have been taking the money of Canadians for years and promising hospitalization; yet even today many of those who have been paying for that insurance find themselves unable to get into a hospital. Only today I was speaking to a patient here in the house. He had been paying into one of these schemes, and had to wait for a month to get into a hospital. The doctors are not saying that we have to wait until we have beds enough to accommodate all the Canadian sick before instituting some such scheme. They propose to have one-half of their scheme operating within a year and to have the full scheme covering both medical care and hospitalization in effect in less than two years. If they can do that, and apparently the minister and certainly the Prime Minister hope that they can, and the Prime Minister has given them his blessing to proceed, then why must the government wait for another thirty years before they undertake to institute a national health insurance scheme?
I have no doubt that, whatever type of scheme is eventually adopted, it will be a better one not because of the research that the minister's department has put into it,

but because of the study that the Canadian Medical Association has given the subject over the past seven years. While the government has been giving the Canadian people, in their propaganda, information leading them to believe that we were going to have a government health insurance scheme, the Canadian Medical Association has been quietly studying and discovering how that scheme can best be put into effect. I am confident that eventually some scheme will be adopted which will be better because of that study.
I would urge the minister to reconsider this whole question. From anything I know of the small section of the Canadian people with whom I come in contact, I can say that they do not want a health scheme organized and administered by the Canadian Medical Association.
The association proposes to institute a scheme whereby the government will pay for a part of the population. They propose to enrol the entire population of Canada in their scheme, with the government paying for all those in the lower income groups. One of their officers indicated that no person receiving less than $2,400 a year could possibly afford to pay medical and hospital bills, and suggested that the government might pay for those below that category. Are we to have a scheme organized and administered by the Canadian Medical Association, and a large part of that scheme paid for out of the Canadian taxpayers' money through the federal and provincial governments? I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that that is not the type of health insurance that the Canadian people want. That is not the type of health insurance that the Liberal party have been promising to Canadian people over the past thirty years.


Mr. Picard:: This is as good an item as
any on which to congratulate the minister and his able officials on the considerable expansion that has taken place during the past six years in the departmental activities of the Department of National Health and Welfare, and also on the considerable benefits which have accrued thereby to the less fortunate in this land.
Under the able guidance of the minister, Canada is heading towards a comprehensive plan of social security. It may be going, as some hon. member have said, step by step, but most of us recognize that in most things in life that is the safest way to proceed. The accomplishments of this government, and of the minister in particular, in the last number of years have proven that the advance has been steady, even if it was step by step.
Supply-Health and Welfare
Great improvements have accrued to the provinces through the provincial grants and to the people of Canada in general through the medical facilities extended throughout the country, which have come from the help given the provinces to strengthen their position. One has only to read the report of the departmental activities in the Department of National Health and Welfare to realize what has been done in the past few years. When it comes to the national health program I think the steps that have been taken, as well as those that are contemplated, are proper and in the right direction.
In this house I represent a rural constituency. Each time I visit the different villages that make up the constituency I can visualize the need for a health insurance program. I visualize the difficulty these people experience in having their sick people treated. It is not for me to criticize the hospital costs and the charges made in the different parts of the country or in different parts of my province, but whatever may be the cause these costs are unbearable by quite a number of people. When they come to you asking for help in trying to present their case to the hospital authorities you can realize the burden in general for all of those people and even those who do not dare to approach you, and you can realize that within a limited number of years the people of Canada will expect that a program of health insurance will be put forward by this government not on a Canadian Medical Association professional basis but on a governmental basis, as it should be, with the co-operation that the medical profession in general has shown, as the minister says, and with good will towards its realization, even if resolutions have been passed lately that have called for some comments by hon. members.
I think this may also be an opportune time, since we are studying health insurance, to tell the minister that some of us may be slightly disappointed that no proposals have yet been brought to the house concerning a definite approach to pensions for the infirm or the invalids. Some hon. gentlemen, probably more conversant with the question than I am, have said in the past that invalidity or infirmity pensions should come forward at the same time as health insurance. While this has not been so in many countries that have already adopted invalidity pensions, yet I think the time has come, whether the government is ready or not, or the studies are ripe or not, to bring in a scheme of health insurance, to consider seriously at one of the very early sessions bringing before us a program of invalidity pensions. I think I am quite in order in bringing this up at this
4466	HOUSE OF
Supply-Health and Welfare time, because it has been said so often that this should be analysed seriously with the help of the medical profession and in connection with a health insurance program.
I think that the house is unanimous in its resolve to support the government in any scheme for invalidity pensions. I have already spoken on the matter on three different occasions in the house: in 1946, in 1949 and in 1950. In those years, along with my colleagues, I advocated the necessity of invalidity pensions. I think we are all agreed on the need of doing something as early as we can. Last year, when I congratulated the minister on the appointment of a committee to deal with old age security, I said that I was much disappointed that the minister had not seen fit to put this question, together with the question of old age security or amendments to the Old Age Pensions Act, before us. At the time they were talking about a dominion-provincial conference; yet, if my information is correct, the program for the conference had not been definitely settled. At this session the minister answered the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar to the effect that we could not deal with the matter at this session because the subject of invalidity pensions was not on the program of the dominion-provincial conference.
But, Mr. Chairman, I think the time has come when this matter should be examined seriously by the minister and the government. I understand that not very long ago a conference was held in Toronto with respect to the rehabilitation of invalids and infirm people. That may be the first step in the right direction; it might lead to some hope for agreement that may bring about the scheme we all want to see introduced in Canada. But I think we will need: to stress upon the minister the urgency of acting quickly and of tackling the problem as early as we can.
I have heard two arguments voiced against an invalidity pensions scheme, namely the difficulty of applying it and, secondly, the cost. As to the question of difficulty we were told it would be better to wait until the health insurance plan was brought forward, because the same physicians and departmental administrative staffs could be used, and that the work of both could be done at the same time. But it may be, as one hon. member has said, that it will take a little time before we have definitely a health insurance program; the step might take a little longer than some of us wish. Therefore I wonder if the minister would not consider studying seriously in the immediate future 

the possibility of doing for the infirm and invalids what some other countries have done in this regard.
It is said that there would be difficulty in applying such a law. Last year, although the question of invalidity was not included in the agenda of the joint committee on old age security, I was allowed to ask a few questions and to ask for the production of information with respect to invalidity schemes that had been carried out in other countries. I find that invalidity schemes have been working satisfactorily and are working at the moment in Australia, Denmark, New Zealand and Sweden. If such countries have been able to tackle the problem, I do not see why we cannot do it right away.
If I may be given a few moments-and I shall make my remarks as brief as possible- I would say that in Australia the first legislation in this regard, concerning invalidity, was passed in 1910, and that is quite a few years ago. I shall not place all the material I have on record, but for the information of hon. members the details are to be found in the minutes of proceedings and evidence, No. 29, of the committee on old age security, 1950.
In respect to Australia the qualifying conditions are as follows: age 16, and permanently incapacitated for work; at least 85 per cent disability, or permanently blind.
In Canada we already have a pension for the blind. Why could we not administer an invalidity or infirmity scheme as well as our scheme for pensions for the blind? Doctors could be trusted just as much to declare a man or woman invalid as they can be trusted to declare blindness.
Then, to carry on with the qualifying conditions in Australia: incapacity must have occurred in that country, and it is waived if there is twenty years of residence. There must be continuous residence in the country for at least five years, and the person must be of good character.
In Denmark the act is dated 1933. In January 1946 there were 41,800 recipients. In a moment or so I shall give more details with respect to the number of recipients in Australia, because I have some further comments to make about it. In Denmark, the qualifying conditions are the following: These pensions are payable from ages 14 to 65 inclusive. Recipients must be unable to earn one-third of the amount earned by persons with similar training and skill in the same locality. The income limit is the same as for old age pensions. The applicant must be of good character.

In New Zealand the scheme was brought about in 1936. The qualifying conditions are: age, 16 to 60; permanent incapacity for work through accident, illness or congenital defect, or totally blind. Incapacity may not be self-inflicted. There must be a residence for ten years immediately preceding the date of application for benefits.
In Sweden the act dates back to 1913, and it is currently governed by the National Pensions Act of 1946. The same law as to privileges apply as in respect of old age pensions. The qualifying conditions are: age 16 to 66, inclusive; permanently incapable of self-support in work corresponding to experience and training. Housing and housewife's benefits are subject to income tests, the same as old age pensioners. There is a blindness supplement, paid without income test to persons who have become blind before reaching the age of 60. There is a sickness allowance, with a disablement the same as for invalidity, lasting at least one year but not deemed permanent. The communes pay part of the cost of pensions supplements.
If these countries have found it possible to administer such a scheme and if the medical profession has been able to help them carry it through, I do not see why in Canada we cannot do the same, when most of us realize in our own constituencies the great need for such a pension.
Then, as to cost, may I be permitted at this point to bring in a few details concerning the Australian scheme, so that we may determine what it might cost for a similar scheme in Canada?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am grateful for the information the hon. member is giving, but I would point out that we are dealing with the item of health insurance studies and that perhaps the hon. member should confine his remarks to that item. If I did not rise, I am sure some other hon. member would do so, and perhaps I would be subject to criticism.


Louis-Philippe Picard: 
Frederick Davis Shaw: Mr. Chairman, there are two
or three things I should like to say before this item carries. I have been intensely interested in all that has been said since the debate on this item commenced. My colleagues and I have on innumerable previous occasions indicated our belief that some form of health insurance is appropriate. However, I would hasten to add that that does not imply that we are prepared to accept any type of health insurance that someone may desire to impose upon us, nor are we asking that we plunge into a scheme of health insurance overnight. We have had a certain amount of experience in our own country which should have taught us something.
We are convinced that the necessary hospital construction is imperative. We realize that no scheme could succeed without an adequate number of hospital beds. We realize fully that no scheme can succeed without an adequate number of qualified doctors, nurses and other personnel to manage our hospitals.
I listened with intense interest to the minister's reference to the grants which had been made to the provinces under the legislation of 1948. I do not know whether it is just an unfortunate habit of the minister,

Supply-Health and Welfare but after paying a tribute to what the provinces were doing he repeatedly created the impression that most of what is being done is being done by the federal government. We have built these beds; we have built those beds. Some of the minister's colleagues have contracted that same-I should not say disease, although it may be appropriate since we are discussing health measures- what I might term a habit.
I recall only too well that last fall I participated in a provincial by-election in my own constituency. Some of those who think similarly to the minister along political lines were asserting on every platform, "Yes, you have more hospitals, but who built them? We did. We have put up all kinds of money. True you have more of this and more of that, but who paid for it? We did".
Let me assure the minister that long before these health grants were made available to my province we had made vast strides in the field of hospital construction and the advancement of other essential health services. I hasten to add that my province is certainly most grateful for the assistance which has been made available through the national health grant.
When one comes from a community such as mine and hears people state what they have to pay for hospital and medical services in other parts of Canada, right here in Ottawa for example, he is almost shocked. I come from a community in which dollar a day hospitalization is the order of the day. Only two and a half years ago, I happened to be hospitalized myself and had what you might characterize as a private room. It cost me $1 per day while I was there. When I find that people have to pay $8, $9 and $10 a day for a hospital room, I am shocked. Moreover, I have no difficulty in securing a hospital bed in my own town. Yet I learn that it is customary in this city and elsewhere, unless the case is an extremely serious one, to make a reservation at the hospital, the same as you would at a hotel in a busy city, two or three months in advance. When I hear that, I certainly am shocked.
I do not know how true this is, but some young friends of mine in this city told me that when their first child was born it cost them between $250 and $300. I was shocked to hear that, because in my home town hospitalization for that kind of case is absolutely free and the medical services would be approximately $55. In other words, practically the entire cost would be only $55. The thought that enters my mind is how in the world can a substantial proportion of the people meet these costs. They simply


cannot. Unless the municipality is prepared to assume the greater part of the burden I suppose their bedrooms become their hospital rooms.
I was interested in certain observations made by the hon. member for Spadina. He said that he is opposed to socialized state medicine. So am I. I am opposed to what I would define as socialized state medicine. I think it is most desirable, as the minister and others have asserted, that we should try to preserve the doctor-patient relationship. I do not want to see any scheme put into operation that will result in the rigid regimentation of doctor, patient or nurse. That is the position I have taken from the beginning.
If I were to indicate what I considered to be the ideal situation it would be to have such economic conditions as would permit the individual to choose his own doctor, his own hospital and pay his own bill. That would be the ideal situation. However, we realize that thousands of people are not in the position where that can be done and it therefore becomes' necessary to provide a certain degree and type of service for them. I want to see the preservation of that thing which induces doctors to give service wherever and whenever it may be required.
I certainly commend the government for the assistance it is giving through these health grants, but I think the provinces which meet these grants dollar for dollar should also be commended.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is for cancer control and hospital construction only.


Frederick Davis Shaw: If I am not mistaken, it involved
an expenditure last year in my own province of $500,000 to match the grants which were paid by the federal government. So I say that when we are handing out bouquets we should hand them out to both parties to the agreement.
I welcomed the minister's announcement that a committee would be set up during the session of 1952. Having served on the old age security committee as well as on the social security committee which sat about 1943 I realize the good that can come out of a committee of that character. We commend the minister for having indicated that that will be the government's course and we shall look forward to serving on the committee and making whatever contribution we can toward bringing into being in Canada a system which will provide a service and at the same time preserve the freedom of the Canadian people, including the doctors, nurses and hospital administrators.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, as one who has taken great interest in this subject throughout the years and who has seen the great need in his own constituency for some form of national health insurance, I must for once become vocal on this subject. I listened with great interest to the minister's step by step explanation and definition of government policy which I am quite sure left many of us quite uncertain as to what the government intends to do. My impression is that the step by step policy is one of marking time, his speech very different to the type of speech we heard in 1945 and prior to 1945. I am quite sure the minister realizes that public opinion in Canada is prepared for government action in the direction of national health insurance. All parties in this house are committed to the principle of national health insurance. During the last federal election all parties placed it in their programs and informed the electorate they would support the principle of health insurance when they returned to the House of Commons.
All organized labour in Canada has expressed support for the principle of national health insurance. For quite a number of years the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, representing the farmers organizations of Canada, has endorsed the principle of national health insurance and has done a great deal of work in this connection. If I remember correctly, I think the federation published a very interesting and informing booklet on the subject in 1944. The Canadian Legion and other veterans organizations from the Pacific to the Atlantic have endorsed the principle of national health insurance and throughout the years have urged the government to take action. In view of the mass of public support for action on this matter, in view of the wealthy nature of our economy, and realizing what has been done in European countries throughout the years in the matter of national health insurance, countries with far less wealth than we have, far less production per capita, surely we in Canada, intending to vote estimates totalling some $3,700 million this year, can with the co-operation of the provinces at least commence to take action with respect to national health insurance.


Paul Joseph James Martin: With reference to my hon. friend's last statement about co-operation with the provinces, no doubt he recollects what I said about that. You cannot do this unless you have the provinces with you, and I told you about the attitude of the provinces.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I quite admit that and the necessity for co-operation, but we have had six years since the green book declarations of 1945 and the announcement of the government's policy during that election, and so
Supply-Health and Welfare far we have not seen much action on the part of the government to develop the co-operation necessary between the provinces and the dominion government on this question. I do not underestimate the difficulties. I want to mention the fact that, after listening to the remarks of members concerning the proposals made by the Canadian Medical Association, in my opinion they would result in a privately controlled body directing health insurance in Canada, and according to the figures given by the hon. member for York South, the government paying by way of subsidy for half the patients served under that scheme. That would not satisfy the Canadian people at this time. I was very pleased to hear the minister say that the government is considering the establishment of a committee on this subject in the 1952 session. I hope that the deliberations of that committee will result in a faster tempo than we have experienced in the last six years and that the step by step action will not continue to be marking time but will be step by step forward, to health insurance in the near future.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is not my intention to prolong this debate at all-


An hon. Member:: That is good.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -but as one who has tried for several sessions to provoke a real debate on health insurance on this very item, I am delighted with the debate we have had today concerning this important matter. I say that, even if some of the views expressed may be views with which I do not agree. The other comment I want to make is one that the hon. member for Kootenay West and the hon. member for Red Deer have already made. I welcome most heartily the minister's announcement tonight of the government's intention to set up a special committee on health insurance in the regular session of 1952. I for one would like to see it in this year's fall session and see no reason why that could not be done, but at any rate we have the statement of the minister that we are to have this committee in 1952. I wish to make one suggestion and then I shall take my seat. I would ask the minister to consider arranging for that committee to be set up and permitted to do its work in the early part of the session of 1952. As the minister and other hon. members know, committees that are set up in the middle or toward the end of a session run into that time of the session when members are burdened with work on other committees and when the work in the house gets that much heavier. I feel that the committee could do a better job if arrangements could be made for it to be set up right at the start of the regular session of 1952.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Health and Welfare General health grants-
282. To authorize and provide for general health grants to the provinces upon the terms and in the amounts detailed in the estimates and in accordance with regulations prescribed by the governor in council including authority, notwithstanding section 29 of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, to make commitments for the current year not to exceed a total amount of $35,302,238, $25,000,000.
George Taylor Fulford: Under this item the minister is empowered to make grants to hospitals to provide living quarters for nurses at the rate of $500 per bed provided that the provinces contribute a similar or greater amount. I understand, however, that the federal grants are restricted to the construction of new buildings. I would ask the minister if consideration could not be given to making grants to be used in renovating of buildings for the purpose of providing nurses accommodation, especially if the province has already made a grant for such a project. In making over a building rather than putting up a new structure it is often possible to effect great savings both as to cost and in the necessary acquisition of building materials.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I will note what my hon.
friend has said. He already knows of the government's decision to give grants for the construction of additional nursing beds, and I can do no more at this stage than note the very pregnant observation of my hon. friend.


Stanley Howard Knowles: When this health grant
program was first inaugurated by means of a supplementary estimate in the first instance, and then later on by items in the main estimates, it was indicated that sooner or later the program would be put in statutory form. When will that be done?


Paul Joseph James Martin: It was thought desirable,
after consultation with certain provincial governments, and having regard to the desirability of having flexibility in the program, to leave it as it is for the time being. The observation I have just made shows the importance of that.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Special health grants-
286. Canadian National Institute for the Blind, $45,000.
Joseph William Noseworthy: Under this item can the minister tell us what is being done to provide training for the blind, or what is being done to direct them into certain fields of activity? I note that the United States government has gone a long way towards studying this whole question. They give special training and direction to the blind, and have a department that is concerned with finding suitable employment for the

blind. Those who are interested in the work of the blind tell me there is a much broader field in which blind people may be employed if properly trained, and if there can be some agency whose responsibility it is to induce employers to take blind people into their employment for those positions. Would the minister indicate if anything is being done by the government in addition to the work that the Canadian National Institute for the Blind is doing? I was thinking particularly of the conference which was held in Toronto last fall to study this situation.


Paul Joseph James Martin: As my hon. friend has said,
the government attaches great significance to the Canadian National Institute for the Blind and increased its grant last year. The subject to which my hon. friend draws our attention, namely providing handicapped persons with opportunities of remunerative employment, is an important one. Last January we had a conference on rehabilitation in which the provincial governments participated, and in which emphasis was given to the general aspect of rehabilitation and the desirability of recognizing the potential work capacity of handicapped people. My hon. friend may be assured that every encouragement towards that work, in which the provinces are co-operating, will be pursued.


Joseph William Noseworthy: There is another group of handicapped people. I do not see any particular item under which a question concerning them can be raised, so with your permission, Mr. Chairman, I should like to raise it here. I understand that in Toronto there is a special school giving training to those with a very low IQ, those who are practically idiots.


Paul Joseph James Martin: They come under the province.


Joseph William Noseworthy: It comes entirely under the province, does it?


Paul Joseph James Martin: In the case of Ontario, they share generally the $10 million we give the province in health grants.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
291.	Victorian Order of Nurses, $13,100.
William Gourlay Blair: I should like to ask the minister one question, and for the purpose of the question I should like to group items 291, 292 and 293.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Is it the pleasure of the committee to group items 291, 292 and 293?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

292.	St. John Ambulance Association, $10,000.
293.	Canadian Red Cross, $10,000.


William Gourlay Blair: In view of the fact that these organizations will have a substantial amount of work to do under the set-up for civil defence, which subject comes under the minister, will the minister give consideration to using part of the $4 million civil defence allotment for increasing the grant for these organizations? None of these organizations is wealthy. They are simply struggling along, especially the Victorian Order of Nurses. If that is not possible, will the minister consider increasing the amount the department grants under this item?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not want to make a definite commitment. I do not think it is possible to use any of the $4 million, because of prior commitments with regard to that sum. We are having some discussions now with some of these voluntary bodies. I cannot be any more definite than that at the present time.


[Stage Direction]
Items agreed to.
294.	Canadian Paraplegic Association, $15,000.
Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the minister
whether any grant has been considered or asked for by the multiple sclerosis society?


Paul Joseph James Martin: We are giving assistance in the problem of multiple sclerosis in research grants to at least two organizations engaged in research in this field. At the moment I have no specific request in mind, but I would not want to say I had not received one.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Welfare branch-*
National physical fitness-
298. Administration, $68,240.
Joseph William Noseworthy: Can the minister tell us if he has in mind an amendment to the Physical Fitness Act? I know that there have been a number of recommendations from the council from year to year requesting amendments.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The whole matter of physical fitness is one that is now under study.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
300. Assistance to schools of social work, $100,000.
Stanley Howard Knowles: With respect to item 300, I should like to express my approval of the decision of the government to increase this grant from the figure of $52,500 which was in the estimates last year to the figure of $100,000. I realize that the schools of social work were, in some instances, requesting that the grant be increased to $150,000. At any rate, this is a substantial increase that the government has made, and I am sure it will be appreciated by these schools of social
Supply-Health and Welfare work, and by the universities in which they are located, not only because of the additional dollars that are forthcoming but because of the commendation of their work that is implied in the decision of the government to increase this grant.
I trust that all hon. members appreciate the importance of well trained social workers in our present-day society. The part they play in connection with all of our social programs is extremely important. In fact, as we enlarge upon our government sponsored social programs, we will find that we will require even more trained workers in this field. It has been pointed out also that in a time of emergency such as a disastrous flood or an international emergency, social workers have an important part to play. The minister knows that from session to session as this item has been called some of us have been expressing the hope that the amount would be increased. We have also expressed the hope that assurance might be given to these schools of social work that they could count on this grant on a more or less permanent basis. I hope that that permanence is becoming established, and I am sure that the increase to $100,000 will be doubly appreciated. Indeed, this is one increase in government expenditure which, in my view, is thoroughly justified.
I make just one other comment. I am glad to note the endorsation contained in this item of the principle of federal aid to education.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I want to briefly support the remarks made by the member for Winnipeg North Centre in connection with this item. I think it is money well spent. Anyone who has closely watched the work of social workers will have noticed, as I have in my province throughout the years, a great improvement in their work since these schools of social work were established. I have had occasion to deal with these people, particularly our provincial officials, and I have been impressed in recent years with their grasp of the problems with which they are employed to deal. I am glad to see this increase.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Louis-René Beaudoin: We shall now consider the estimates of the Department of Public Works.



DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

[Stage Direction]
335. Departmental administration, $475,765.
Mr. Brooks:: I should like to ask the
minister a question concerning a matter which I brought up some time ago, and that is the Campbellton-Cross Point bridge. I believe

Supply-Public Works the premier of New Brunswick was reported as stating that the responsibility for building this bridge rested entirely with the federal government. At the time the minister was not certain whether or not it was a federal responsibility. He intimated that he would obtain a decision from the Department of Justice.
In this connection, I should like to read what the premier of New Brunswick is reported to have said to the local legislature at Fredericton. He said:
The building of the bridge is not the responsibility of the New Brunswick government, nor the Quebec government.
I might say that this bridge is between Campbellton, New Brunswick and Cross Point, Quebec.
It is a federal matter. This was clearly evident in the provisions of the British North America Act, and it was reiterated in 1945 when the federal spokesmen informed the provinces: "The dominion government is now responsible for . . . interprovincial and international bridges." Premier Duplessis of Quebec supports this view.
Then the premier of New Brunswick went on to say:
The do-nothing policy of the federal government in the case of the Campbellton bridge follows a familiar pattern of apathy towards New Brunswick's just claims. Ottawa is simply "passing the buck,"
The minister rather questioned this statement when I made it before. I am quoting directly from the premier of New Brunswick. The item that he referred to is an item in "Public Investment", a blue book or green book issued by the federal government for the dominion-provincial conference on reconstruction in 1945. At page 42 this statement will be found under the paragraph headed "Highways and Bridges":
Highways and bridges, when situated wholly within a province, come under provincial jurisdiction but where they connect two provinces or extend beyond the limits of the province, they become a federal responsibility, under section 92 (10) of the British North America Act.
The paragraph continues:
By the same act, military roads were placed under dominion control by authority of section 91 (7) . . .
But that is the section that the premier of New Brunswick refers to. I had a reply not from the Minister of Public Works but from the deputy minister of justice. This letter I received from him is dated May 26, 1951, and reads as follows:
Re: Construction of bridge between Campbellton, New Brunswick and Cross Point, Quebec.
Dear Sir:
There has been referred to me for attention, a request which I understand you have made to the Minister of Public Works for an opinion on a question in connection with the construction of a bridge
[Mr. Brooks.)
between Campbellton, New Brunswick and Cross Point, Quebec.
I have to advise that I am of the opinion that legislative jurisdiction over interprovincial works of this nature belongs to parliament,-
I interpret that as meaning the federal parliament.
-and executive authority to the federal cabinet.
From this rather vague letter of the deputy minister I think it is quite evident that his opinion is that interprovincial bridges are the responsibility of the federal government. I should like to ask the minister if he himself has looked into the matter. Probably he has not felt the necessity of doing so because, from what I read here in 1945, evidently a legal opinion was given at that time that the responsibility for interprovincial bridges was that of the federal government.
I should like to ask the minister if he has made, or if he intends to make, any provision for the construction of this necessary bridge between Campbellton and Cross Point. A ferry had been running there for quite a number of years. The people in that area found it inadequate as far as service to the people was concerned. The ferry was destroyed slightly over a year ago, and that area is now served by neither a bridge nor a ferry. I know that the people in that area have sent in petitions and that there is in the minister's office considerable correspondence in connection with the construction of this bridge. I should like to ask him if anything is being done at the present time.


Hon. Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public Works):: I was pleased to listen to the reading of that opinion from the Department of Justice. If the hon. member says it is rather vague, he cannot blame me when I say that I had doubts as to our responsibility or jurisdiction. But seeing that the hon. gentleman has received that opinion, I may tell him that we shall be guided by the opinion of the Department of Justice, who are our legal advisers.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I should like to ask the minister if this is the first time that he has had an opinion from the Department of Justice in connection with interprovincial bridges; because in 1945 an opinion was expressed.


Alphonse Fournier: In 1945? It is only a repetition of subsection 10 of section 92 of the British North America Act. I think it is about in the same terms. Has the hon. member read subsection 10?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: It is definite. The minister has seen it.


Alphonse Fournier: Some people think the constitution is quite definite. Subsection 10 of section 92 reads as follows:
Local works and undertakings other than such as are of the following classes:
(a) Lines of steam or other ships, railways, canals, telegraphs, and other works and undertakings connecting the province with any other or others of the provinces, or extending beyond the limits of the province:
Personally I have not given the matter my attention, but I may say that I will be guided by that opinion which the hon. gentleman received. You cannot ask more from the Department of Public Works than that it should follow the opinion of the Department of Justice on this matter.


Gordon Graydon: The minister is a pretty good lawyer himself.


Mr. Casselman:: And he would make a good judge, too.


Alphonse Fournier: Generally the Department of Justice gives opinions that are quite clear. In that case they speak of the jurisdiction of parliament.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: No,-


Alphonse Fournier: They do not speak of responsibility.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: They say:
. . . jurisdiction over interprovincial works of this nature belongs to parliament, and executive authority to the federal cabinet.


Alphonse Fournier: Yes.


Gordon Graydon: I guess that last part rather helps the minister.


Alphonse Fournier: That last part may be a little bit clearer. But in any event I will make a thorough study of that legal opinion and will follow it when the occasion arises.
The hon. member put a fair question to me. He asked: Is there provision in this year's estimates for a bridge or ferry between Cross Point and Campbellton? I must admit that we have no provision in these estimates. As to whether we will have estimates or appropriations later on, I would have to consult my colleagues of the government; and when they make the decision I will be more than pleased to let my hon. friend know as one of the first, seeing that he is interested in this matter.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Then I understand the minister will take the matter under consideration?


Alphonse Fournier: Oh, yes.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Favourably.


Alphonse Fournier: I may say that we have been looking into the matter for some months, especially since the ferry was burned down some months ago. If we were in
80709-284J
Supply-Public Works normal times I could tell the hon. gentleman that I would press for some action. But I am a little bit puzzled in this case because in the past, when we put up an interprovincial bridge, say between Ontario and Quebec, the two provinces made contribution and the federal government put up the bridge and maintained it. To my knowledge the Perley bridge on the Ottawa river between Hawkes-bury and Grenville was built with a contribution of one-third from Ontario, one-third from Quebec and one-third from the federal government, and we maintain that bridge.


Mr. Higgins:: I have a few words to say on this item. Some time ago-some two years ago in fact-when discussing this general item I commented on the fact, in referring to the newest province, that there appeared to be a very grave discrepancy between the amount of expenditures in certain parts of the province as against other parts of the province. I referred specifically to that part of the province that elected members to the Liberal part of the house as against the other part. At that time the Minister of Public Works commented that it was a peculiar coincidence. That was in 1949, Mr. Chairman, Again this year, Mr. Chairman, I find in a return that was made to a question of mine on March 12 the same peculiar coincidence, and it is in connection with that that I want to discuss this matter with the minister and ask him how this coincidence could happen again, and why it has happened.
I want to give the figures. He has them already because his department supplied them to me. There must be some justifiable excuse other than the mere matter of coincidence, Mr. Chairman, because we have to recognize that the two districts represented by the hon. member for St. John's West and myself take in the principal parts of the island. When I say that, I do not mean any disparagement of the other parts of the province, but we do take in the capital city of the province, and in the capital of the province is the centre of government, and all that goes with the centre of government.
I might say, Mr. Chairman, that it is not considered good politics, if you will, to refer to these facts and suggest that you are not getting your share and that other people who happen to be in the government are getting much more because they are in the government. That has been suggested to me as not being the proper way to comment on these matters, but with all due respect to those people who advised me I do feel that as one representative of the newest province and as a person who is not too well versed in matters political these are proper remarks to make at this time.

Supply-Public Works
Since we are the newest province we have to be recognized a l'ittle differently from other parts of the dominion, and therefore matters of patronage should be divided up in a fairer manner. I am going to name the districts by name, and I am going to give the amounts that they have received. I am speaking now of marine works. From the first of April, 1949, up to the present year, and the estimates for the present year up to date, are all given in the return. From April 1, 1949, the district of St. John's East had spent in, it $38,108.56. St. John's West, being the other district represented by a Progressive Conservative, had the sum of $49,523.01 spent in it. I am now going to take the districts alphabetically. In the district of Bonavista-Twillingate represented by the Secretary of State, the amount was $267,095.21.


Arza Clair Casselman: Shame.


Gordon Francis Higgins: In the district of Burin-Burgeo the amount was $187,666.85; in Grand Falls-White Bay, $152,664.57. We are now getting to the district represented by my hon. friend, and a very good friend, from Humber-St. George's which apparently has not received the same quantitative amount. His district received only $61,442.48. Then we come up to the highlights again and we have the district of Trinity-Conception receiving $118,372.77. In other words, Mr. Chairman, a grand total, up to this year, of $874,873.45, of which St. John's East, and I am speaking of my own district, received $38,000. That is one point. I now come down to the estimates of this year. In this year the work called for in St. John's East amounts to $69,803; in St. John's West, $91,060; in Bonavista-Twillingate, the constituency of the Secretary of State, $1,332,575.


Arza Clair Casselman: Shame.


Gordon Francis Higgins: In Burin-Burgeo the amount is $443,120; in Grand Falls-White Bay, $159,600; in Humber-St. George's-again small potatoes compared with the others, but very much higher than ours-$78,400, and in Trinity-Conception, $529,500. I am not going to labour the point, but I should like to make this comment. We came into union with Canada in 1949. Since then the grand total is over three and a half million. That is including the proposed current expenditure of $2,704,058. Of that amount the district of the Secretary of State alone receives these two amounts, $267,095.21 and $1,332,575. I am a person that believes that lightning does not usually strike twice in the same place. In 1949, in the month of December, the minister said, in answer to my leader, that it was a very peculiar coincidence that moneys for public works were

expended as they were in Newfoundland. I again ask him tonight to explain how that coincidence could have happened again.


Alphonse Fournier: I do not wish to make a lengthy statement, but I will try to come right down to the point. I am told that St. John's, Newfoundland, had its harbour facilities kept in good condition all through the last war. Reports received from the engineers would not have justified expenditures, even if we tried to divide public works estimates pro rata to the population; but we were told- and I have reports from the engineers to that effect-that the outlying coast where the fishermen make their living had no harbour facilities. I am told that they are the poor element of the population. From the kindness of heart of my officials we thought we would start doing work in Newfoundland to help these poor fishermen. When we get to St. John's where the facilities exist my hon. friend can rest assured that I will not forget my two good friends from St. John's. If they have any special requests that are justified according to the reports I receive from the engineers there would be no distinction because they do not belong to the government party. You can take my word for that because I have been following that policy for seven years.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Either the minister's milk of human kindness has been curdled or he has been badly misinformed because the constituencies of St. John's East and St. John's West are not only city districts but take in outlying fishing settlements as well.


Alphonse Fournier: That is where we spent that money.


Gordon Francis Higgins: As the minister knows, or should know, requests have been made on behalf of the fishermen of these districts for various facilities, but they have not been acceded to. I will mention one in particular in my own riding, and that is Flat Rock, where there is a very large fishing settlement, from which a request was made, and I myself was informed that the cost of doing the job there would be $150,000. That was considered to be too high for the work to be done by the department. That is perfectly all right. So long as the minister says he is not going to do it in the city of St. John's, all right. The city will look out for itself. But what about the fishermen he is so interested in? He has told us how interested he is in helping the fishermen. I ask him, in that case, to take into consideration the settlement of Flat Rock, and also the settlement of Bauline.
Bauline has made a request for a breakwater, but that request has not yet been

acceded to. There is a very hard-working and liberal-minded group of people in Bauline; I can assure the minister of that. They certainly would be more than happy if he were to agree to their request.
Then he should be happy to consider the annual question of the wharf at Portugal Cove. The minister has been pretty generous in his treatment of certain districts, and in particular his treatment of that district represented by the Secretary of State. I do not blame him; after all, the Secretary of State is very close to him. Probably he has the minister's ear more than other Newfoundland members associated with him-and certainly more than the hon. member for St. John's West and myself.
He must remember, as I have tried to tell him more than once, that Bell Island is most important, and that Bell Island needs to be serviced by this wharf. I would remind him that Bell Island is still the largest iron ore mine in the British empire today. I would remind him that the war effort requires the use of all possible facilities. Merely because the minister states Portugal Cove wharf is a ferry wharf, the minister says he will not help put a proper wharf there. I have asked for the correspondence in this connection, and the minister has put me off by saying that it was not agreed to by the premier of Newfoundland. Then the other day he said that the premier had agreed.
I still have not got the correspondence, and I still do not know what happened, and I hope the minister will tell me what happened when he gets a chance. Maybe he will tell me tonight. He has told me that I have no fishermen in my constituency, and that there are none in the constituency of the hon. member for St. John's West. But other constituencies have been receiving large expenditures because of fishing settlements. Perhaps the minister would explain that.
Mr. Four mar (Hull):	Public works proceed gradually throughout the country. If the hon. member were to see the files in our office, containing requests from St. John's, Newfoundland, to Victoria on Vancouver island, he would be surprised how many works we do not cope with every year. But I like the way the hon. member deals with the estimates of this department, because it brings me back to reality. Only a few days ago I read a newspaper from his city, the Sunday Herald, which I believe circulates in all Newfoundland, and is the largest newspaper on the island.


Donald MacInnis: Which island?
Supply-Public Works


Alphonse Fournier: Newfoundland. Do
you know what they say about public works? They say this:
Although not too much is heard on the subject, it's a fact that hundreds of thousands of dollars have been spent in this province on federal public works since confederation. But you would have to travel around the country to see the dozens of public wharves which have been constructed at Ottawa's expense. Today, even the most remote hamlet-
And this is speaking of Newfoundland-
-has a jetty which is only slightly too small for the Queen Mary. And we cannot help but wonder if a great many of these wharves are not a waste of money.


Gordon Francis Higgins: May I ask a question?


Alphonse Fournier: No. Just a moment. I hope my hon. friend made requests to me tonight that will be justified. My engineers will decide if they are, and as soon as I have time I shall try to study the situation and have an estimate made. Never be discouraged with public works. Do not mind what party you belong to: if the need is there, we are at your service.


Gordon Francis Higgins: The minister does drip like a honeydew melon, and one cannot be upset by him. He has such a kindly voice. However, I would like to ask if he quoted the newspaper as an authority. I ask him that because it is a paper that is very close to the party in power in Newfoundland, and some may question its authenticity.


Mr. Gibson:: Its objectivity.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Yes, its objectivity. Let me say that the engineer of the department, Mr. Gerald Millar, is a very fair man, and is doing a fine job. When the premier of Newfoundland criticized him, he criticized him wrongly indeed. I say that, and I repeat it. So far as I am concerned, not only is he a fair man but he is a just and a capable man. All I ask is that the minister and those associated with him authorize Mr. Millar to do again what he feels is right, no matter who represents the district. I do not know whether there is any authority one way or the other, but I do know that there does appear to be a great preponderance of money spent in districts represented by members who are in the Liberal party.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Architectural branch-
337.	Ottawa-maintenance and operation of public buildings and grounds, including repairs and upkeep, rents, furnishings, heating, etc., and to authorize commitments against future years in the amount of $500,000, $9,282,534.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Room No. 16 used to be a room of great charm and dignity which members of the house enjoyed frequently.

Supply-Public Works


Alphonse Fournier: If the hon. member is referring to room 16 he will have to see Mr. Speaker about it. It does not come under my department.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Is the minister responsible for that artistic atrocity?


Gordon Graydon: I should like to renew a question I asked some weeks ago in connection with the windows blown out of the dome of the library about a year ago. The minister at that time, with his usual courtesy, told me he was going to find out if something could be done. Would he be in a position to tell us now?


Alphonse Fournier: After the request from the hon. member we did look around and we tried to replace those windows with the same material originally employed. However, this took place some years after confederation, and we found it difficult to replace them as they were before. I am told this evening however that we now have provided the frames and the templates to do the work, and I understand it will be done during the summer.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Architectural branch-
338.	Maintenance and operation of public buildings and grounds, other than at Ottawa, including repairs and upkeep, rents, furnishings, heating, etc., and to authorize commitments against future years in the amount of $800,000, $15,661,008.
Mr. Black (Cumberland):: Have the maintenance and improvements been completed on the public buildings at Springhill, Nova Scotia? An appropriation to carry out this work has been outstanding for two or three years. I believe some work was done. I do not know how much was spent last year. What is proposed for the current year, and will it complete the renovation and improvements?


Alphonse Fournier: The repairs and alterations to that building come out of our general vote. I am not really up to date on that specific project, because it is not under the vote for Nova Scotia.


Percy Chapman Black: This item 338 is for $15,661,008, and I would consider it a general item.


Alphonse Fournier: That is a general item covering maintenance. I shall ask my officials to look into the matter and tomorrow sometime I will give all the details to the hon. gentleman.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Mr. Herridge.)
[Stage Direction]
Acquisition, construction and improvements of public buildings-
Construction, acquisition, major repairs and improvements of, and plans and sites for, public buildings listed in the details of the estimates, provided that treasury board may increase or decrease the amount within the vote to be expended on individual listed projects-
339.	Newfoundland, $560,000.
Mrs. Fairclough:: I should like to speak on this group of items because the information I seek is related to all of them and I think it would be wise not to ask the same question on each item. I find these figures very interesting. The total shown is $29,598,000, less unforeseen improvements of $2,000,000, which gives a total allocated to the provinces of $27,598,000. However, a large number of items are shown as revotes, either in whole or in part. For instance, Yukon and the Northwest Territories show a revote of $150,000 out of a total of $200,000. In the case of Newfoundland there is $193,000 of a revote out of a total vote of $560,000. Ottawa, out of a total vote of $5,793,000 there is a revote of $3,041,000. Quebec, out of a total of $7,968,000 there is a revote of $4,403,000. Ontario, out of a total of $4,625,000 there is a revote of $3,085,000, and so on all the way down the line. Out of a total of $27,598,000 there is a revote of $15,704,000.
Revotes of that size would indicate that these works were not proceeded with last year and I am wondering what the chances are of their being proceeded with this year. If $15 million was carried over from last year what chances are there of using $27 million this year, particularly in view of the shortage of materials and the urgent need for materials in lines other than public works? What are the possibilities?


Alphonse Fournier: Not very good, but I shall explain why we have such large revotes. These estimates are prepared in December; they come into the house in February and they are voted in June. That is when we get our authority to proceed with the expenditure. In many parts of Canada the construction season lasts only a few months. Though we have the good will to proceed we do not always succeed. If you will look over these estimates for the past forty years you will see that there have always been revotes.
What frightens me this year is the lack of materials. We may have far more revotes when I come back next time. When I prepared these estimates in December there were no restrictions on steel and with those restrictions I cannot proceed with many public works though they have come down in amount by $21 million from last year.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I have no objection to
the manner in which these figures are brought forward except that they seem to present a totally false picture as to what may be expected. Inasmuch as the taxes of this country are predicated upon expected expenditures it seems to me that here is a sizeable chunk of money which is being taken from the taxpayers when there is no expectation at all of its being used.


Alphonse Fournier: I would not go as
far as that because a vote is transferable from one project to another. A project may be delayed or not started with, but with the authority of the treasury board we can transfer that vote to projects that are under way. Actually in many cases where there are revotes we never vote the total amount of the construction unless we know the amount of the contract. We get an initial vote, we prepare plans, we acquire a site, we ask for tenders, we give a contract, but that contract may take one, two or three years to complete. We try to have as exact an amount as possible in our estimates.
I am not a contractor, but I am told that there is hardly any way in which you can arrive at the exact amount that will be expended in one year on any project. It is an estimate. These are not costs; they are estimates. That is what my officials tell me and they are well versed in these matters. They say it is the best way to proceed, and according to the statute I must follow their advice.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I suppose it is well to
be optimistic, particularly when there are so many people to please. I understand that it is impossible to transfer funds from one department to another, but I must say that I would rather see these amounts go to the minister of resources for use in housing construction.


William Joseph Browne: What is the attitude of the government in regard to a public building in St. John's? I notice there was a vote of $100,000 last year with a revote of $50,000 this year. Is it the intention of the government to have a public building erected in St. John's? There is no doubt about the need because the offices are quite crowded and are scattered all over the place.


Alphonse Fournier: For the last year we
have been trying to purchase a site for this building but we have found that the people do not all agree on the site. At last I have decided that we should put the building on the government grounds, if that is the way you describe them. I have gone into the matter thoroughly but the trouble is getting
Supply-Public Works a definite price. I have to admit that I have not been successful in that. Negotiations are being carried on and the moment we receive a firm offer for this site we will have our valuators go down and make a report. When we can purchase the site we will prepare plans and specifications and proceed with the building.


William Joseph Browne: Has an
offer of a site been made to the government?


Alphonse Fournier: I discussed the matter with the authorities in Newfoundland and I was shown the exact location which the provincial government would be willing to sell to the federal government. I have not received a price and I have no knowledge of the price that is being asked. I am trying to get that price.


William Joseph Browne: Is the
matter being actively pursued?


Alphonse Fournier: As actively as I can
pursue any activity.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Where is the site?


Alphonse Fournier: On the hill adjacent
to the provincial buildings; I believe it is Circle road and Bannerman avenue.


Gordon Francis Higgins: I made a protest some time
ago and the minister said it was not going to be built.


Alphonse Fournier: Did I change my
mind? I have never visited the place myself, but I had a conversation with the highest authority in the province and he told me they would be ready to sell that site.


Gordon Francis Higgins: I take it the minister means the premier of Newfoundland offered to give him that piece of land?


Alphonse Fournier: I never said that he
offered to give us the land.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Did he offer to sell it to
you?


Alphonse Fournier: Yes, and we are
waiting for a price.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Is that offer still open?


Alphonse Fournier: As far as I am concerned it is open. If they will give me a price I will get a vote and pay for it.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Then all that is stopping
the erection of a building there now is the question of price?


Alphonse Fournier: No, no.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Then if that is not so I want to register my protest against the building being erected in the particular spot the minister talks about. If the question of

Supply-Public Works price is the only objection, that is all very well; but I still want to register my protest against the building being erected where the minister states he may erect it. The minister has to take into consideration the fact that the people of St. John's still live in St. John's, and in my part of St. John's where that building is to be erected the people do not want it erected there.


John Lambert Gibson: Why?


Alphonse Fournier: Do I understand that the people of St. John's do not want to have the building erected there?


Gordon Francis Higgins: This is a residential area and it is a part of government house grounds. We still have our traditions and we still like to preserve government house grounds.


Alphonse Fournier: That is why there is so much delay in putting up a building in St. John's.


Gordon Francis Higgins: No, it is not that by any
means. I am quite certain the minister has a lot of sites where he could build public buildings if the proper contacts are made to have the land set aside.


John Lambert Gibson: Whom do you have to see?


Mr. Ashbourne:: While we are considering the estimates of the Department of Public Works I should like to find out something from the minister. At page 222 of the estimates for 1950-51 there was a vote of $30,000 for the construction of a public building at Lewisporte. I should like to ask the minister why the money was not spent and why the building was not erected. I have had some communications from my constituency with respect to this matter. I have a telegram from the Lewisporte town council which I received last week. It reads:
Please advise if public building is to be constructed here this year. II not advise cause of delay.
On looking at the estimates for this year I notice that the amount has been dropped. It has not been included in the estimates for 1951-52. I should like to point out the importance of Lewisporte because it is a thriving progressive town. It is at the head of a spur of railway about nine miles long running from Notre Dame junction to Notre Dame bay, and it serves a large area. I believe Lewisporte is situated at about the most northerly point on the railway in Newfoundland. It is centrally situated in the middle of Notre Dame bay, and through it pass large quantities of merchandise including coal for the railway and a lot of gasoline for Gander. It is evident of course that it is an important place, and I am sure I do not know why this vote has not been


included in this year's estimates when the money was not spent last year. I should like to have an explanation.


Alphonse Fournier: I can tell the hon. member right now. They took $21 million off my estimates. I had to cut some place and Lewisporte was one of the places. Hon. members will see that the Minister of Public Works is not criticized only by people from the other side of the house.


William Joseph Browne: I should like to congratulate the Secretary of State on being able to get an increase of $175,000 for the building in Bonavista.


Alphonse Fournier: I am sure he will acknowledge the congratulations.


Mr. McGregor:: The resistance was not so strong there.


Thomas Gordon William Ashbourne: The minister has explained that they needed a large amount of money for defence purposes. Of course when it comes to the defence of Canada I am all for that, and I suppose I have to suffer in my riding, but I should like to point out that this $30,000 is not a very large amount. In view of the importance of the vote and the need for it I should like to have it included in the supplementary estimates if at all possible. If not, when the estimates are being prepared for next year I hope the members of treasury board will take cognizance of what has been said, inasmuch as I understand they follow Hansard pretty closely, and see if they cannot include that vote of $30,000 so that the people in that very important thriving settlement will be able to get a decent public building. There is one other matter I should like to mention. I should like to find out the amount of money that has been spent by the Department of Public Works at Gander this year. Gander is also in my riding and is in a very important strategic position. If the international situation should become worse we can look forward to a great influx of people there again. I should like to know how mufih money has been spent at Gander. In last year's estimates there was an amount of $75,000 and in the supplementary estimates a further amount of $65,000. I should like to know the amount that was spent.


Alphonse Fournier: We	have spent
$99,254.92 at Gander.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
340.	Nova Scotia, $278,000.
Percy Chapman Black: I am not going to register any complaint but I want to point out that the estimates for my province have been reduced to less than one-fifth of what they were in the previous year.	I think the

people of Nova Scotia are disposed to approve reductions in expenditure if they are necessary in the public interest and for our defence, but it would appear to me that the figures indicate that there has been a greater reduction in Nova Scotia than in any other province. I want to point that out to the minister. I am not going to refer to any specific instances, but on the whole it would appear that we are suffering to a greater extent than any other part of Canada.


Alphonse Fournier: In answer to the hon. member, I understand that in the preceding year there was an amount of $1,483,000 covering a good many projects. Some of those projects were completed, and we have not undertaken any new works in that province this year. It is true that the amount has been cut down quite a bit, but we have been doing a lot of work in Nova Scotia in the past, and when comparisons were made Nova Scotia was always in first place.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
341.	Prince Edward Island, $380,000.
Percy Chapman Black: Perhaps we should hav: a word from the minister with respect to item 341, Prince Edward Island. The hon. member for Queens has always endeavoured to secure information from the minister with respect to expenditures or promised expenditures on the public building in Charlottetown. He happens to be absent this evening, and I know he would like to have a report from the minister with respect to the progress his department has made in acquiring land for the proposed public building in Charlottetown and settling with the owners thereof. I know he would like to have a report from the minister as to what was done last year and what is proposed for the current year. I see there is an item of $150,000 for that project compared with $500,000 last year, a reduction to less than one-third.


Alphonse Fournier: We have nearly completed the purchase of the property which comprises the site of this public building. This has been a long-drawn-out affair. We had expropriation proceedings taken against approximately twenty-five different owners of these properties. We have proceeded to settle most of them but some are still not completely settled. When we become the owner of this site we will have the plans prepared. If conditions return to normal, we shall certainly proceed with that building. I would have given this explanation even though the member for Queens is not here. We are close personal friends but I would not deny him any information. He is in the same position as many of the members of the house, 80709-285
Supply-Public Works because even if we did have the plans prepared and had asked for tenders I do not think we could get the steel to erect the building. I do not know how many contracts are being held in the office because we cannot get the steel. I assure the member for Queens that every representation he makes concerning this project will receive serious consideration.


Percy Chapman Black: I know the member for Queens will appreciate the assurance the minister has given. What is the total amount to date disbursed for the property the department had to acquire? I presume the department has expropriated the site, and there is therefore no justification for delay in proceeding with the construction merely because the department has not settled the compensation.


Alphonse Fournier: Perhaps the hon. member is right, but I understood there were some business places on this site before we became the owners. We hesitated throwing people out without due notice. The amount spent on the properties was $266,196.25.


Percy Chapman Black: Have any findings been made on the properties by the exchequer court?


Alphonse Fournier: No hearings have been held on those cases yet.


Percy Chapman Black: May I ask the
minister if any plans have been prepared for the building?


Alphonse Fournier: No.


Percy Chapman Black: When is it
expected the plans will be completed so the department will be in a position to call for tenders?


Alphonse Fournier: I would hesitate to give a date when the plans will be completed. I would be afraid I would make a mistake.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
343. Quebec, $7,968,000.
Douglas Scott Harkness: I have a considerable number of questions on this item concerning the details found on page 350, "Hull-national printing bureau (revote $650,000), $1,300,000". I asked a number of questions in connection with this and received a return in sessional paper No. 107-D, dated May 17, 1951. I must say that it is notable for what I can only call its evasiveness so far as the answers are concerned. As a result I should like to ask some further questions in connection with those on the sessional paper to see if we can get a little more definite information.
4480	HOUSE OF
Supply-Public Works
The first question I asked at that time was:
What was the original estimate of the total cost of the new government printing bureau in Hull, Quebec?
The answer given is $11,300,000. The second question was:
What is the present estimate of what the total cost will be?
The answer given is $11,300,000.


Alphonse Fournier: What date was that?


Douglas Scott Harkness: It is dated May 17, 1951. Will the minister state when this original estimate was made? How long is it since there has been another estimate made, because the answer given to both those questions was the same figure, $11,300,000. In view of the fact that this printing bureau has been on the drawing boards at any rate for some considerable time, and >so far as I can see here the original estimate was $11,300,000 there should be a revised estimate now because building costs have certainly risen in the last two years.


Alphonse Fournier: If I gave you that answer in May, 1951, I cannot see that they have gone up that much in a month.


Douglas Scott Harkness: No; what I am getting at is that the answer is quite patently wrong. The first question I asked was, when was this original estimate of the total cost of this structure made?


Alphonse Fournier: I am told that $11,300,000 is the last estimate made.


Douglas Scott Harkness: When was the first estimate made?


Alphonse Fournier: I could give you all kinds of figures when we started off on this project. It is quite difficult to estimate before you have complete plans of the building, or to give the final figure for the work. If you asked me what the cost will be, I would say you will have to wait until all the contracts are given.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The minister has just given two different answers. He said he could not give the original estimate because you could not tell until all the contracts were in. He said the only figure he could give is the $11,300,000. Then he turns round and says he could not tell what it might be until all the contracts are in. That is the trouble with this return. Everything in it is contradictory. If the original estimate was $11,300,000, then the present estimate cannot be $11,300,000. What I want to find out is when the original estimate was made. There must have been a figure when the department first decided to build this building. They must have estimated what the total cost was going to be.
	\


Alphonse Fournier: My friend wants me to say that somebody in my department made an estimate three or four years ago. Well, that is not the way we proceed. We have to start by hiring or taking on the payroll an architect, and having this architect and the departmental architects consult with the department requesting the building. Through consultation they decide what kind of building is required, and the amount of space required. They then start making sketches and plans, and as they go on they make out specifications. In a building like this one they did start some years ago-I have heard so much about the printing bureau in the house that I think it is in my own riding. Probably that is why I hear so much about it. When they started off, they did not have an estimate. I have given an estimate. Probably they did not know any more than you know or I know. My department tells me the architect says the estimated cost will be $11,300,000.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The minister is now trying to tell me, so far as I can make out, that they started the building without any idea of what it was going to cost. They start in to get architects and let contracts, and after they have gone on for a time they finally come up with an estimate. I really cannot accept that as being the way government business should be run. I do not think there is any question but that there is always an estimate in connection with any building I have ever heard about. It seems to me there must have been an estimate made so far as this building is concerned.
In any event, my original point still remains that this return is incorrect. The answer to the first question and the answer to the second question are the same. It is quite evident that they cannot be the same. Before we come to these estimates again-I see it is after eleven o'clock-I would ask the minister to get me an answer to that question.


Alphonse Fournier: Do not make an unfair request. When the hon. member puts a question in the house, it is sent to the officials of the department. They have the files and they have the figures. They give me the answer, and I table it in the house. If the hon. member is going to tell my officials they do not know what they are doing, I really would not like that.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am going to repeat what I said a while ago, that this return is completely evasive. I cannot say anything more about it. There was no answer anyway to the question, and an effort was made to conceal the answer.


Alphonse Fournier: I would ask the hon. gentleman to withdraw the word "conceal". It would not apply to me because I am over and above that; but I have gentlemen here who have a reputation and I must ask the hon. gentleman to withdraw that remark.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I cannot
withdraw it. The return is here for anybody to see; and I will submit it and the rest of these questions.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Before this discussion is over, I will submit all the rest of these questions, and I will leave it for you, Mr. Chairman, or anyone else to say whether the return bears out the statement I have just made.


Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Chairman, I insist that the hon. gentleman who is insulting the officials of my department withdraw that remark.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I think that the hon. member for Calgary East certainly had no intention of insulting the deputy minister, the officials of the Department of Public Works or the minister himself. He, of course, knows about the citation in Beauchesne at page 105 which refers to high officials. They are covered by standing order 41 which forbids offensive language. I would think that the hon. member would himself realize that it might be advisable for him to modify his remarks or withdraw the words that he has used.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The minister and I get on very well indeed, Mr. Chairman, and I am quite sure that he knows that I had no intention of insulting him and that I had no intention of insulting his officials.


Alphonse Fournier: Thank you.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



VETERANS AFFAIRS

[Stage Direction]
Sixth report of special committee on veterans affairs.-Mr. Mutch.

Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will take up the estimates of the Department of Veterans Affairs and the bills concerning veterans affairs. If we get through with those late in the evening, we will take up the estimates of the Department of Agriculture afterwards.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) make it clear which come first, the estimates or the bills?
Supply-Health and Welfare Mr. Fournier (Hull): The estimates. We will start with the estimates.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:

[Stage Direction]
255.	Departmental administration, $869,901.
National health branch-
Health services-
256.	National health branch-administration, $115,726.
257.	Administration of the quarantine and leprosy acts, $289,391.
258.	Immigration medical services, $736,367.
259.	Sick mariners medical services, $584,111.
260.	Grants to institutions assisting sailors, in the amounts detailed in the estimates, $2,600.
Laboratory of hygiene-
261.	Operation and maintenance, $368,185.
262.	Construction and acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $75,000.
263.	Public health engineering, $147,576.
264.	Industrial health, $170,085.
265.	Civil service health, $233,247.
266.	Epidemiology, $40,832.
267.	Administration of the Food and Drugs Act, $815,546.
268.	Administration of the Proprietary or Patent Medicines Act, $25,515.
269.	Administration of the Opium and Narcotic Drugs Act, $159,914.
Indians and Eskimos health services-
270.	Operation and maintenance, $9,875,630.
271.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $1,609,000.
272.	Grant to Squamish (B.C.) hospital which cares for Indians and Eskimos, $30,000.
Special technical services-
273.	Nutrition, $144,069.
274.	Child and maternal health, $87,308.
275.	Venereal disease control, $32,218.
276.	Dental health, $43,414.
277.	Hospital design and consulting service, $24,286.
278.	Mental health, $50,610.
279.	Blindness control, $32,328.
280.	Civil aviation medicine, $29,087.
281.	Health insurance studies and administration of general health grants, $72,409.
General health grants-
282.	To authorize and provide for general health grants to the provinces upon the terms and in the amounts detailed in the estimates and in accordance with regulations prescribed by the governor in council including authority, notwithstanding section 29 of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, to make commitments for the current year not to exceed a total amount of $35,302,238, $25,000,000.
[Stage Direction]
Supply
Special health grants-
Grants to health organizations-
283.	Canadian Mental Health Association, $10,000.
284.	Health League of Canada, $10,000.
285.	Canadian Public Health Association, $5,000.
286.	Canadian National Institute for the Blind, $45,000.
287.	L'Association Canadienne Frangaise des Aveugles, $6,000.
288.	L'Institut Nazareth de Montreal, $4,050.
289.	Montreal Association for the Blind, $4,050.
290.	Canadian Tuberculosis Association, $20,250.
291.	Victorian Order of Nurses, $13,100.
292.	St. John Ambulance Association, $10,000.
293.	Canadian Red Cross, $10,000.
294.	Canadian Paraplegic Association, $15,000. Welfare branch-
295.	Welfare branch administration, $30,696. Family allowances -
296.	Administration, $2,004,289.
Old age pensions and pensions to the blind1-
297.	Administration, $83,859.
National physical fitness-
298.	Administration, $68,240.
299.	Assistance to provinces, $82,214.
300.	Assistance to schools of social work, $100,000.
301.	Grant to Canadian welfare council $16,000.

[Stage Direction]
335.	Departmental administration, $475,765.
Architectural branch-
336.	Branch administration, $471,308.
337.	Ottawa-maintenance and operation of public buildings and grounds, including repairs and upkeep, rents, furnishings, heating, etc., and to authorize commitments against future years in the amount of $500,000, $9,282,534.
338.	Maintenance and operation of public buildings and grounds, other than at Ottawa, including repairs and upkeep, rents, furnishings, heating, etc., and to authorize commitments against future years in the amount of $800,000, $15,661,008.
Acquisition, construction and improvements of public buildings
[Stage Direction]
Construction, acquisition, major repairs and improvements of, and plans and sites for, public buildings listed in the details of the estimates, provided that treasury board may increase or decrease the amount within the vote to be expended on individual listed projects-
339.	Newfoundland, $560,000.
340.	Nova Scotia, $278,000.
341.	Prince Edward Island, $380,000.
342.	New Brunswick, $1,639,000.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, June 22, 1951